Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Servitudes

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

ServitudesQuestion 1 of 20

A subdivision was developed in 1960 with a valid restrictive covenant limiting all lots to single-family residential use. The subdivision is bordered on its northern side by a major highway. In the intervening decades, the land on the other side of the highway has been developed into a large commercial district with shopping malls and office towers. The traffic and noise affecting the lots bordering the highway have increased exponentially. An owner of one of these border lots has contracted to sell her property to a company that wants to build a small medical clinic. The homeowners' association has sued to enjoin the sale and proposed construction.

What is the lot owner's best defense against the enforcement of the covenant? Select one.

The local zoning ordinance has been changed to commercial for the area, which automatically terminates the private covenant.

The covenant is an unreasonable restraint on alienation because it significantly limits the property's market value.

The character of the surrounding area has changed so fundamentally that the covenant's purpose can no longer be achieved.

The homeowners' association has abandoned the covenant by failing to prevent minor home-based businesses within the subdivision.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Servitudes

Practice Servitudes in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Servitudes, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is the lot owner's best defense against the enforcement of the covenant? Select one.

The local zoning ordinance has been changed to commercial for the area, which automatically terminates the private covenant.
The covenant is an unreasonable restraint on alienation because it significantly limits the property's market value.
The character of the surrounding area has changed so fundamentally that the covenant's purpose can no longer be achieved. (correct answer)
The homeowners' association has abandoned the covenant by failing to prevent minor home-based businesses within the subdivision.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The doctrine of changed conditions provides a defense to the enforcement of an equitable servitude when the character of the neighborhood has changed so drastically that the original purpose of the covenant is no longer achievable. The massive commercial development across the highway and the resulting impact on the border lots present a strong argument that the purpose of maintaining a strictly residential character has been frustrated for those lots. Zoning changes (A) do not terminate private covenants. The restraint on alienation argument (B) is incorrect. Abandonment (D) requires widespread violations within the subdivision, not just minor ones.

Question 2

A developer sold a lot with a covenant in the deed requiring the grantee and their successors to pay an annual fee of $200 directly to the developer, for as long as the developer lived, for his "architectural consulting services." The original buyer sold the lot to a new owner, who had record notice of the covenant. The developer sent the new owner a bill for $200. The new owner refused to pay, claiming the covenant is not binding on him.

Is the covenant to pay the fee enforceable as a real covenant against the new owner? Select one.

Yes, because the covenant was in writing, the parties intended it to run, and the new owner had notice.
Yes, because covenants to pay money for services related to a subdivision are generally held to run with the land.
No, because the benefit of the covenant is personal to the developer and does not touch and concern any land. (correct answer)
No, because there is no horizontal privity between the developer and the new owner.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. For a covenant to run with the land (either the burden or the benefit), it must "touch and concern" the land. This means it must affect the parties as landowners. A covenant that requires payment to an individual personally, not for the direct benefit or maintenance of the land or common areas, provides a benefit in gross that does not touch and concern any land. Therefore, the burden of this personal obligation will not run with the land to bind the new owner.

Question 3

A landowner, A, conveys a parcel to B with a covenant in the recorded deed that the property shall not be used for the sale of alcohol. The covenant states that it is for the benefit of A's remaining adjacent land, where A operates a restaurant. B complies with the covenant. B then leases the property for a five-year term to a tenant. The tenant, despite having actual knowledge of the covenant, opens a wine shop. A sues the tenant for money damages resulting from lost business.

Is A likely to succeed in his action for damages against the tenant? Select one.

Yes, because the tenant had actual notice of the covenant and is in possession of the burdened property.
Yes, because B, as the landlord, is strictly liable for any breaches of covenant committed by his tenant.
No, because a tenant holding a leasehold does not have the strict vertical privity required for the burden of a real covenant to run. (correct answer)
No, because A's proper remedy is an injunction to stop the sale of alcohol, not a suit for money damages.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. To recover money damages, A must enforce the promise as a real covenant. For the burden of a real covenant to run to a successor, there must be strict vertical privity, meaning the successor must hold the entire estate of the original promisor. A tenant holds a lesser estate (a leasehold) than the landlord (a fee simple). Therefore, strict vertical privity is lacking, and the burden of the real covenant does not run to the tenant. Note that A could likely get an injunction against the tenant under an equitable servitude theory, which does not require vertical privity, but the question asks about money damages.

Question 4

A landowner granted a recorded easement to her neighbor "for ingress and egress" over a driveway on her property. At the time of the grant, the neighbor's property was a single-family residence. Thirty years later, the neighbor's successor in interest, a developer, demolished the house and constructed a 20-unit apartment building on the property. The developer intends for all 20 tenants and their guests to use the driveway easement. The landowner's successor has sued to enjoin this level of use.

Is the court likely to grant an injunction limiting the use of the driveway? Select one.

No, because any owner of the dominant tenement is entitled to use an ingress and egress easement for its intended purpose.
No, because the development of the dominant tenement was foreseeable, and the original grantor should have included limitations.
Yes, because any subdivision or increased use of a dominant estate automatically terminates an appurtenant easement.
Yes, because the proposed use represents an unreasonable increase in the burden on the servient estate. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. While an easement appurtenant serves every part of the dominant estate, the use must not unreasonably overburden the servient estate. Courts will look at the use contemplated by the original parties. A change in use from a single-family home to a 20-unit apartment building is a dramatic intensification. A court is likely to find that this substantially increases the burden on the servient estate beyond what was originally intended and will enjoin or limit the use.

Question 5

A woman owned two adjacent parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. She sold Parcel B to a man, including in the deed a grant of "a right-of-way across the southern portion of Parcel A for access to the public highway." Ten years later, the man sold Parcel B to a new owner. The woman, who still owns Parcel A, has informed the new owner that the right-of-way was personal to the man and that the new owner is not permitted to use it.

Does the new owner of Parcel B have the right to use the right-of-way across Parcel A? Select one.

Yes, because the right-of-way provides access to a public road, which makes it an easement appurtenant that runs with the land. (correct answer)
No, because the grant did not specify that it was for the buyer's "heirs and assigns," creating a presumption of an easement in gross.
No, because commercial easements in gross are transferable but personal easements in gross are not, and this easement was personal.
Yes, because the woman is estopped from denying the easement's existence after allowing its use for ten years without objection.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. There is a legal presumption that an easement is appurtenant rather than in gross. An easement is appurtenant if it benefits its owner in his physical use or enjoyment of his own land (the dominant tenement). An easement providing access to a parcel of land clearly benefits the use and enjoyment of that land. Therefore, the easement is appurtenant and runs with the land to successive owners of Parcel B. The lack of words like "heirs and assigns" (B) is no longer dispositive in modern law.

Question 6

A developer filed a valid Declaration of Covenants for a new subdivision, which included a rule prohibiting any fence over four feet in height. The developer sold Lot 5 to an initial buyer, and the deed expressly referenced the recorded Declaration. The initial buyer later sold Lot 5 to a new owner. The deed to the new owner did not mention the Declaration of Covenants. The new owner, without conducting a full title search, built a six-foot privacy fence. The homeowners' association sued for an injunction to force the new owner to lower the fence.

Is the homeowners' association likely to succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the Declaration of Covenants was in the new owner's chain of title, providing constructive notice. (correct answer)
No, because the covenant was not in the new owner's direct deed, meaning she lacked actual notice.
No, because vertical privity of estate is required to enforce an equitable servitude, and it is absent here.
Yes, but only if the association can prove that the six-foot fence causes a demonstrable loss of value to neighboring properties.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. For an equitable servitude to be enforceable against a subsequent purchaser, the purchaser must have notice of the restriction. Notice can be actual, inquiry, or constructive (also called record notice). A properly recorded Declaration of Covenants that is within the purchaser's chain of title provides constructive notice to all subsequent purchasers of lots in that subdivision, regardless of whether the covenant is mentioned in their specific deed. Therefore, the new owner is bound by the fence height restriction.

Question 7

A landowner held a valid, recorded easement to use a driveway across his neighbor's property. Following a heated argument, the neighbor constructed a concrete wall completely blocking the driveway. The landowner sent one certified letter demanding removal of the wall but took no further legal action. The wall remained, completely preventing any use of the easement. This condition persisted for 12 years, a period longer than the jurisdiction's 10-year statute of limitations for adverse possession. The landowner has now filed suit to enforce the easement.

Is the landowner likely to succeed in his lawsuit? Select one.

Yes, because an express recorded easement can only be terminated by a written release signed by the easement holder.
Yes, because the landowner's letter of protest prevented the neighbor's blockage from being considered hostile.
No, because the landowner's failure to use the easement for more than 10 years constituted abandonment.
No, because the neighbor's continuous and hostile obstruction for the statutory period terminated the easement by prescription. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. An easement can be terminated by prescription. This occurs when the owner of the servient estate interferes with the easement in a manner that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period. By building a permanent wall and blocking access, the neighbor's use was adverse to the easement holder's rights. This adverse obstruction, maintained for longer than the 10-year statutory period, extinguished the easement. A mere protest letter (B) is not enough to stop the statutory clock. This is not abandonment (C) because that requires an act by the dominant owner.

Question 8

Two friends purchased a vacant lot as tenants in common. They orally agreed that if either one decided to sell their interest, they would first offer it to the other for a fixed price of $50,000. A year later, one of the friends received an offer from a third party to purchase her one-half interest for $75,000. She accepted the offer without first offering her interest to her co-tenant. The co-tenant has now sued to compel a sale of the interest to him for $50,000.

Is the co-tenant likely to succeed in his lawsuit? Select one.

Yes, because the oral agreement is enforceable as a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment.
Yes, because the right of first refusal is a covenant that runs with the land and binds co-tenants.
No, because a right of first refusal is an interest in land that must be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. (correct answer)
No, because a fixed-price right of first refusal is an unreasonable restraint on alienation and is void against public policy.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A right of first refusal (a preemptive right) restricts the free transferability of property and is considered an interest in land. As such, it is subject to the Statute of Frauds and must be contained in a signed writing to be enforceable. Because the agreement between the friends was oral, it is unenforceable. While D raises a valid concern about fixed-price options being potential restraints on alienation, the Statute of Frauds is the more direct and dispositive reason for unenforceability in this case.

Question 9

A woman owned Lot 1, which benefited from a recorded easement for a driveway across adjacent Lot 2. Later, the woman inherited Lot 2, giving her fee simple ownership of both parcels. She owned both lots for five years. She then sold Lot 1 to a buyer. The deed to the buyer was silent about the driveway easement. Shortly thereafter, she sold Lot 2 to a different person. When the buyer of Lot 1 attempted to use the driveway, the owner of Lot 2 blocked him.

Does the buyer of Lot 1 have a valid right to use the driveway easement? Select one.

Yes, because the easement was properly recorded and was never formally released in a written instrument.
Yes, because the easement was revived by implication when the woman severed the common ownership by selling Lot 1.
No, because the easement was extinguished by the doctrine of merger when the woman acquired ownership of both lots. (correct answer)
No, because the buyer's failure to insist on express language in the deed constituted a waiver of the easement.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The doctrine of merger extinguishes an easement when the dominant and servient estates come into the same ownership. A person cannot have an easement over their own land. Once extinguished by merger, the easement is not revived automatically by a subsequent severance of the parcels. To re-create the easement, it would have to be newly granted in the deed or meet the requirements for an implied easement, which is a different analysis.

Question 10

Is the covenant to pay the fee enforceable as a real covenant against the new owner? Select one.

Yes, because the covenant was in writing, the parties intended it to run, and the new owner had notice.
Yes, because covenants to pay money for services related to a subdivision are generally held to run with the land.
No, because the benefit of the covenant is personal to the developer and does not touch and concern any land. (correct answer)
No, because there is no horizontal privity between the developer and the new owner.

Question 11

A landowner conveyed a parcel of land to a buyer. The deed contained a covenant stating that the buyer and his successors would maintain a fence on the boundary line between the conveyed parcel and the landowner's remaining property. The deed was properly recorded. The landowner later sold his remaining parcel to a neighbor. The initial buyer sold his parcel to a real estate investment company. The fence has since fallen into disrepair. The neighbor has sued the investment company for money damages to cover the cost of repair.

Is the neighbor likely to succeed in recovering damages from the company? Select one.

Yes, because all requirements for the burden of the covenant to run with the land to the company have been satisfied. (correct answer)
No, because there was no horizontal privity of estate between the neighbor and the investment company.
No, because the investment company did not expressly assume the obligation to maintain the fence in its deed.
Yes, but only if the neighbor can demonstrate that the fence provides a substantial economic benefit to his property.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. For the burden of a real covenant to run to a successor, there must be (1) a writing, (2) intent for the covenant to run, (3) the covenant must touch and concern the land, (4) horizontal and vertical privity, and (5) notice. All elements are met here: the covenant is in the deed (writing, notice); it binds successors (intent); maintaining a fence touches and concerns the land; the original deed established horizontal privity; and the company took the buyer's entire interest (vertical privity).

Question 12

Is the homeowners' association likely to succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the Declaration of Covenants was in the new owner's chain of title, providing constructive notice. (correct answer)
No, because the covenant was not in the new owner's direct deed, meaning she lacked actual notice.
No, because vertical privity of estate is required to enforce an equitable servitude, and it is absent here.
Yes, but only if the association can prove that the six-foot fence causes a demonstrable loss of value to neighboring properties.

Question 13

An owner of a 100-acre tract of land conveyed the western 50 acres to a buyer. The conveyed parcel was landlocked, with no access to a public road except across the owner's remaining eastern 50 acres. The deed was silent as to any access rights. The buyer immediately began using a dirt path across the owner's eastern parcel to reach the public road. Ten years later, the original owner sold the eastern parcel to a new owner who promptly blocked the path. The buyer of the western parcel has sued the new owner to establish a right to use the path.

What is the buyer's strongest argument for establishing a permanent right to use the path? Select one.

An easement by prescription was created by ten years of continuous and uninterrupted use of the path.
An easement by implication from prior use was created because the path was used by the buyer after the severance.
An easement by necessity was created at the time the original tract was severed, landlocking the western parcel. (correct answer)
An irrevocable license was created when the original owner acquiesced to the buyer's use of the path for ten years.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. An easement by necessity is created when an owner severs a tract of land, and the severance deprives one parcel of access to a public road. The elements are (1) common ownership of the parcels prior to severance, and (2) strict necessity for the easement at the time of severance. Both are met here. This is stronger than prescription (A) because the use was likely not adverse, and stronger than prior use (B) because there is no evidence the path existed before severance. A license (D) is generally revocable and does not create a permanent right.

Question 14

A developer subdivided a 50-lot tract of land. The deeds for the first 40 lots sold contained a covenant restricting the properties to single-family residential use. The developer then sold the 41st lot to a buyer with a deed that did not contain the restriction. The buyer, who had no actual knowledge of the restrictions on the other lots, began preparations to build a commercial gas station. The subdivision has a uniform residential appearance. The owners of the first 40 lots have filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the buyer's construction.

In a jurisdiction with a pure notice recording statute, are the homeowners likely to succeed in their lawsuit? Select one.

No, because the restrictive covenant was not in the buyer's deed, so she was not bound by it.
No, because there was no horizontal privity between the developer and the buyer regarding the covenant.
Yes, because the developer's original intent to bind all 50 lots is sufficient to create an enforceable servitude on the 41st lot.
Yes, because the uniform residential character of the subdivision put the buyer on inquiry notice of a common scheme of development. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The homeowners' best argument is that an implied reciprocal negative servitude exists. This equitable servitude arises from a common scheme of development. For the burden to run to a subsequent purchaser, the purchaser must have notice of the covenant. Here, even without actual notice or record notice (since the restriction was not in her deed), the uniform residential appearance of the other lots could be found to have put the buyer on inquiry notice, which is sufficient to enforce an equitable servitude.

Question 15

What is the lot owner's best defense against the enforcement of the covenant? Select one.

The local zoning ordinance has been changed to commercial for the area, which automatically terminates the private covenant.
The covenant is an unreasonable restraint on alienation because it significantly limits the property's market value.
The character of the surrounding area has changed so fundamentally that the covenant's purpose can no longer be achieved. (correct answer)
The homeowners' association has abandoned the covenant by failing to prevent minor home-based businesses within the subdivision.

Question 16

You are representing a client who wants to build a state-of-the-art, prefabricated modular home in a subdivision. The subdivision's covenants, drafted in 1972, state: "No trailer, mobile home, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other outbuilding erected on the tract shall at any time be used as a residence, either temporarily or permanently." The homeowners' association claims your client's proposed home violates this provision and has threatened legal action.

Which of the following legal issues is the most important for you to research to determine the strength of your client's position? Select one.

Whether the homeowners' association has waived its right to enforce the covenant by permitting other architectural styles.
The proper judicial interpretation of the term "trailer" and "mobile home" and whether a modern modular home falls within that definition. (correct answer)
Whether there was horizontal privity between the original grantor and grantee when the covenant was created.
Whether the changed character of home construction technology is sufficient to invalidate the covenant under the changed conditions doctrine.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The central dispute is one of interpretation: does the language of the 1972 covenant, which prohibits using trailers and mobile homes as residences, also apply to a modern, high-quality prefabricated modular home? This requires legal research into how courts interpret the scope of such restrictive covenants and whether they apply to building technologies that did not exist when the covenant was drafted. The other issues are less central. Waiver (A) would require evidence of non-enforcement against similar structures. Privity (C) is likely satisfied. Changed conditions (D) typically relates to the surrounding neighborhood, not technology.

Question 17

A homeowner owns a house with a valuable view of the ocean. She sells an adjacent vacant lot to a buyer, and the deed includes the following provision: "The grantee, his heirs and assigns, covenant not to build any structure on the premises that would materially obstruct the ocean view from the grantor's residence." Years later, a successor to the buyer begins construction of a large home that will block the view. The homeowner's successor in interest sues for an injunction.

The servitude being enforced is best characterized as which of the following? Select one.

An affirmative easement.
A profit à prendre.
A negative restrictive covenant. (correct answer)
An easement by necessity.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The provision is a negative restrictive covenant, which is a promise to refrain from doing something on one's own land. It is negative because it prohibits an action (building to block a view). At common law, these were sometimes called negative easements, but they are now typically enforced as equitable servitudes or restrictive covenants. It is not affirmative (A) because it does not require the burdened owner to perform an act. It is not a profit (B) because it does not grant the right to take resources from the land. It is not an easement by necessity (D), which relates to access.

Question 18

Is A likely to succeed in his action for damages against the tenant? Select one.

Yes, because the tenant had actual notice of the covenant and is in possession of the burdened property.
Yes, because B, as the landlord, is strictly liable for any breaches of covenant committed by his tenant.
No, because a tenant holding a leasehold does not have the strict vertical privity required for the burden of a real covenant to run. (correct answer)
No, because A's proper remedy is an injunction to stop the sale of alcohol, not a suit for money damages.

Question 19

A farmer granted a deed to a railroad company that conveyed "a strip of land 100 feet wide for a right-of-way for railroad purposes." The railroad built and operated a line on the strip for 80 years. Last year, the railroad ceased all operations on the line, removed the tracks and ties, and put the strip of land up for sale. The farmer's successor in interest has filed a quiet title action against the railroad, claiming ownership of the strip.

Who is the likely prevailing party in the quiet title action? Select one.

The railroad, because the deed is presumed to have conveyed a fee simple absolute interest in the strip of land.
The railroad, because removing the tracks constitutes non-use, which is insufficient to terminate its property rights.
The farmer's successor, because the deed likely granted an easement that was terminated by abandonment when the railroad ceased operations and removed the tracks. (correct answer)
The farmer's successor, because the deed created a fee simple determinable that automatically reverted when the land was no longer used for railroad purposes.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Courts often interpret deeds granting land to railroads "for a right-of-way" or "for railroad purposes" as conveying an easement, not a fee simple estate. An easement can be terminated by abandonment, which requires both non-use and an act demonstrating intent to permanently abandon. Ceasing operations and removing the tracks are strong evidence of such intent. Therefore, the easement was likely terminated, and the unburdened fee simple estate remains with the farmer's successor. While D is a possible interpretation, courts favor construing such grants as easements.

Question 20

You represent a client who purchased a home in a large planned community governed by a homeowners' association (HOA). The community's recorded covenants grant the HOA's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) the authority to approve or deny any exterior modifications based on "harmonious architectural standards." Your client submitted plans to paint her house dark gray, a color not currently used in the community. The ARC denied the application, stating that the color was "not in keeping with the established aesthetic." There are no specific color palettes listed in the covenants.

What is your client's strongest argument to challenge the ARC's decision? Select one.

The covenant is void because it constitutes an unreasonable restraint on alienation.
The ARC's decision is arbitrary and unreasonable because it is not based on any objective standard found in the covenants. (correct answer)
The HOA has abandoned the covenant by allowing other homeowners to plant non-native flowers in their gardens.
The covenant did not run with the land because there was no horizontal privity between the original developer and the HOA.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. While courts generally uphold the authority of architectural review committees, their decisions must be reasonable and made in good faith. A denial based on a vague, subjective standard like "harmonious" or "established aesthetic," without reference to any specific guidelines in the covenants, is vulnerable to a challenge that it is arbitrary and capricious. The other options are incorrect. The covenant is a reasonable restraint on use, not alienation (A). Allowing different flowers is unlikely to constitute abandonment of architectural paint color controls (C). Privity (D) is not the central issue in challenging the exercise of an established committee's authority.