Substrate Record: qid 1303

← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1303 · law

Question: | Driveway————————————————————–House | House |————————————————————– | Garage | House————————————————————–LOT3 | LOT2 | LOT1 ————————————————————–(TEACHER) | (NEIGHBOR) | (CO-WORKER | | & BOSS)————————————————————-On March 1, 1999, a landowner, the sole owner and occupant of lot 1, died and devised lot ito both his co-worker and his boss "as their community property. " The co-worker and boss were siblings, and neither was married. Lot 1 consisted of a single- family house with a yard, garage, and driveway. On May 1, 1999, the boss moved into the house on lot 1. One year later, the co-worker and the boss executed and delivered the following deed instrument to a neighbor ". . . hereby grant to (the neighbor) the northerly 30 feet of lot 1, consisting of the paved driveway now existing, to be used for the ingress and egress of motor vehicles, but should (the neighbor) or his heirs and assigns use said property for any other purpose, all the rights, privileges, and immunities herein granted shall cease and determine. " In consideration for the said deed, the neighbor paid the co-worker and the boss $2,000 (which they divided equally). The deed was never recorded by the neighbor. Because the boss didn't own a car, she never used the driveway. Similarly, the neighbor never used the driveway because he unexpectedly had his driver's license suspended shortly after executing the above instrument. The boss died intestate on May 1, 2001, leaving her daughter as her sole heir. Following her mother's death, the daughter moved into the house on May 2, 2001. On June 1, 2001 the neighbor sold lot 2 to a professor by a deed that contained no mention of the driveway located on lot 1. The neighbor and the professor assumed that the latter had the right to use the driveway, so they didn't insert any recitations in their deed instrument regarding the driveway. Immediately upon her taking possession of the premises, the daughter began to use the driveway on lot 1. Consequently, she objected to the professor's use of the driveway. After the daughter refused to permit the professor to use the driveway, he brought suit to determine his right to continue use of the driveway. The professor should

1. win, because the neighbor's easement to use the driveway was conveyed to the professor.
2. lose, because the original deed granting use of the driveway specified it could only be used by the neighbor, not his successors or assigns.
3. lose, because the deed instrument between the co-worker, boss, and the neighbor was never recorded.
4. win, because the professor was under the assumption that he had rights to use the driveway.
5. win, because the deed to lot 2 implicitly included the use of the driveway on lot 1.
6. lose, because the neighbor's non-use of the driveway effectuated an abandonment of the easement.
7. win, because he acquired an implied easement to use the driveway as owner of the dominant tenement.
8. lose, because the Statute of Frauds was not satisfied.
9. win, because the driveway was considered a shared asset among the adjacent lots.
10. lose, because the daughter of the boss has exclusive rights to the property, including the driveway, upon her mother's death.

Our answer: A. win, because the neighbor's easement to use the driveway was conveyed to the professor. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer