Blog

A buyer bought a home from a real estate developer for $700,000. The buyer paid $100,000 of the purchase price herself. The buyer’s employer provided $100,000 of the purchase price by giving the buyer a loan and taking a mortgage. The developer loaned $500,000 to the buyer to finance the remainder of the purchase price, and in return took a mortgage on the property. One week later, a bank obtained a judgment against the buyer for a delinquent credit card balance. The bank properly recorded its judgment as a lien against the property. Another month after that, the buyer incurred some extraordinary medical expenses, and asked the employer for another $100,000, which the employer provided and added onto the principal balance the buyer owed on the loan. Finally, six months later, the buyer asked the developer to change the terms of the loan, so that the buyer would have more time to pay. The developer and the buyer agreed that the buyer could have an additional five years to pay the balance of the loan in exchange for an increase in the principal of the loan. Shortly thereafter, the buyer lost his job and defaulted on all of his payments. The employer brought an action to foreclose its mortgage. All mortgages and liens were promptly and properly recorded.  Regarding the distribution of the proceeds of an eventual sheriff’s sale of the property, which of the following statements is true?

A vineyard and a wine distributor enter into a valid written agreement whereby the vineyard is to supply the wine distributor with all of the distributor’s requirements of wine for a period of five years. The agreement contains a clause prohibiting assignment of the contract. Nonetheless, a few months after the agreement is entered into, the vineyard assigned its rights under the contract to one of its creditors. The vineyard continued to supply the distributor with wine, and the distributor paid the creditor. After one year, the wine distributor decides that it wishes to purchase its wines from a different vineyard and notifies the vineyard that it is terminating its contract.  If the creditor of the vineyard sues the distributor, is it likely to prevail?

A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently, that corporation’s biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however, there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court, alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law. Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules, the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.  May the court dismiss the remaining claim?

A landowner and her neighbor owned adjoining parcels of land. The landowner’s property was situated to the west of the neighbor’s property. A highway ran along the east of the neighbor’s property. Twelve years ago, the landowner asked the neighbor if it would be all right for the landowner to use an eight-foot strip along the northern part of the neighbor’s land to access the highway. The only other way for the landowner to get to the highway was to use a one-lane unpaved road that meandered through the woods for two miles. The neighbor agreed, and the landowner used the strip of land regularly to access the highway. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. What is the landowner’s interest in the neighbor’s eight-foot strip of land?

A gang member threatened to kill the defendant unless he robbed a convenience store and gave the proceeds to the gang member. The gang member also demanded at gunpoint that the defendant kill the clerk to prevent identification. In abject fear of his life, the defendant did everything that the gang member requested.  If the defendant is arrested and charged with murder and robbery in a common law jurisdiction, what result?

A man and a woman met in a bar. While the two enjoyed a couple of drinks, the woman told the man that she greatly admired the diamond stickpin he had in his lapel. “Oh, this,” the man laughed. “It’s no diamond; it’s only a piece of glass.” The woman acknowledged his statement, but kept commenting on how nice it looked. After further conversation, the man orally agreed to sell the stickpin to her for $500. They agreed that in four days, the man would bring the stickpin to the same bar, and the woman would bring the $500 in cash. The woman wrote down her name and phone number on a napkin and asked the man to call her if there were any change in plans. The man duly appeared with the pin, but the woman failed to appear. The man filed suit against the woman for $500.  In an action by the man against the woman for breach of contract, which of the following would be the woman’s best defense?

A husband and wife were charged with stealing credit cards and charging expensive items on the misappropriated cards. An attorney was appointed by the court to represent the couple jointly. At the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the attorney would have no conflict representing both defendants in the joint trial. Halfway through the trial, however, a conflict arose between the defenses of the husband and wife. At the wife’s request, the attorney moved that another attorney be appointed to represent the wife and that a mistrial be declared. The trial judge moved favorably on the attorney’s motion.  Another attorney was appointed to represent the wife, and as soon as the wife’s trial began, her attorney moved to dismiss the case on the ground that jeopardy had attached during the wife’s first trial and that she was being retried in violation of the United States Constitution. Should the judge grant the wife’s attorney’s motion?

A man and a woman purchased a parcel of land, taking title as joint tenants. Two years later, they married and had a son. Several years after that, the man and woman divorced. After the divorce, the woman and her son continued to occupy the land, although title remained in the names of both the man and the woman. The man moved out of the state and conveyed all of his title and interest in the land by deed to the son. Shortly thereafter, the man was killed in an automobile collision. The man died intestate.  Who has title to the land?

A borrower owed a lender $1,000. The debtor had promised to pay the lender back in one week, but three months passed and no money was forthcoming. The debtor always managed to avoid the lender’s calls, so the lender drove to the debtor’s house one night, intending to demand repayment in person. The lender rang the debtor’s doorbell, knocked on his door, and screamed for the debtor to come out, but no one responded. The lender then tried the doorknob on the closed front door. To her surprise the door was unlocked, and she entered the debtor’s house. After yelling several times for the debtor, the lender concluded that the debtor was not at home. Convinced that the debtor had run out the back door to avoid her, the lender went to the debtor’s living room, grabbed an overstuffed chair, and carried it to the debtor’s front lawn. The lender then doused the chair with lighter fluid and set it afire. Alarmed at the flaming chair, one of the debtor’s neighbors called the police. The police found the lender still standing on the lawn next to the smoldering chair.  Assuming that the jurisdiction has not statutorily amended the common law elements of the crimes below, with which of the following may the lender be properly charged?

The defendant was on trial for driving while intoxicated and injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian claimed that the defendant was driving the car; however, the defendant’s spouse testified at trial that she had been driving the car at the time of the accident and had not consumed any alcohol that evening. In response, the prosecution calls a friend of the defendant’s spouse to testify that the spouse told the friend that she and the defendant had changed seats in the car after the incident and that she remained in the driver’s seat until the police arrived.  Is the testimony admissible?