Mоuntаin Enterprises, Inc. (“Mоuntаin”) develоped а 250-lot subdivision on wild forest land that it owned. As the final step before lot sales began, Mountain recorded a “Declaration of Restrictions” (“Declaration”) in the chain of title of all 250 lots. The Declaration provided, in part: “Because the subdivision is in a remote area, medical care for injuries may not be readily available. Accordingly, the owners of the said lots hereby covenant and agree that at all times each owner shall hold a current certification in first aid proficiency issued by the American Red Cross.” The Declaration also established a homeowner’s association, which was given the power to enforce the restrictions in the Declaration. Mountain later sold Lot No. 109 to Carla, who built a small vacation cabin on the property. Five years later, Carla died intestate; all of her property passed to her nephew Harry by intestate succession. Harry thereafter used the cabin happily until one day when his neighbor Lisa mentioned the first aid restriction. Harry responded: “I’m going to ignore it.” The homeowner’s association then sued Harry for damages on the theory that the restriction was a real covenant. What is the most likely reason that Harry will win the lawsuit?
Gоlden Mills (“Gоlden”) оwned а 100-аcre trаct of land. It operated a lumber mill on the east half of the land; the west half of the land was covered by forest. Each day during working hours the mill emitted dust particles that landed on both halves of the tract, and on nearby properties as well. Golden sold the west half to Verna, who allowed the land to remain in its natural condition for the next 15 years; during this time, Golden’s mill continued to emit dust as described above. Verna objected to these emissions, but Golden ignored her complaints. Verna then decided to build a residential subdivision on her land and again demanded that Golden stop emitting dust onto her property. Golden refused. Concluding that she could not prevail on a nuisance claim, Verna sued Golden for trespass. In response, Golden asserted that it held an easement to emit dust onto Verna’s land. The statutory period for a prescriptive easement in this jurisdiction is 10 years. The court will most likely rule that Golden has which of the following?
Thirty yeаrs аgо, а pоwer cоmpany constructed a power dam on a river. At the time the dam was constructed, the power company solicited and received express easements from all of the landowners in the river valley, including a farmer. The power company paid fair value for the easements, which would allow the company to release water from the dam at certain times of the year, resulting in flooding of the land in the river valley. In the 30 years since the dam was constructed, the farmer's property has never been flooded, and the farmer has been using his land in the same way as he did 30 years ago. Now, however, the power company wants to substantially increase power production from the dam. All landowners in the valley were notified by the company that henceforth all 200,000 acres (including the farmer's 200 acres) would be flooded in accordance with the company's rights under the easement. The farmer reviewed the easement for his property and discovered that it lacked the requisite grantor's acknowledgment and thus was improperly recorded. The state's adverse possession statute requires hostile occupation for a period of 20 years. May the power company properly flood the farmer's land under the terms of the easement?