Problems 2-5 on pp. 42-43
2 - I would say that T now had constructive possession of the animal as O did not reclaim
his property. Therefore, T1 should not profit from his trespass and T should win the suit
and recover from T1. If T is now suing O for the return of the animal after O retrieved it, he
should not win the animals return as O was the rightful possessor and has a rightful title to
the property, however O was not in hot pursuit and is still liable for trespass.
 Theory of relative title, O had first possession via constructive possession, now T
has first possession over T1. T winning discourages trespass, public policy for
protecting possession. Law discourages self-help. .
3 - H should prevail. Holding for H serves the policy of rule of capture as H was the first to
capture and kill the animal in the wild while hunting. H had no way of knowing that F
domesticated the animals and was hunting on government land open for hunting season.
Holding for H protects the interests of hunters. Holding for F serves the policy of animus
revertendi as they are domesticated animals that return to F's land every evening. Protects
the interest of those raising domestic animals.
4 - D should prevail because of the rule of capture and because once the fox took off it was
no longer the property of P. Constructive knowledge because the fox is not natural to the
land could entitle P to a claim.
5 - the government owns and does not own wild animals they claim to regulate. If they
were held liable for every animal that causes damages it would not be economically
feasible, however it is fair for them to claim ownership to support the violation of their
regulations.
Problems 1 & 2 on 88-89
1. A may have adverse possession because it was taken in Good Faith but according to
the reasoning in Lutz, they did not use the entire property.
a. O has prior constructive possession of all 100 acres of land even though he
did not use 40 acres of it. A may win the 40 acres used
b. If O took title under an invalid deed and had met the statute of limitations, O
would still win and have a superior title to 60 acres of land
2. If A takes adverse possession of lot 1 under color of title (invalid deed) and sues X
and Y, A would only win against X who owns lot 1. If X signed the deed, then lot 1
would be A's without adverse possession. If X signed the deed and A entered lot 2,
the signing of the deed would not matter, A would win by adverse possession.
a. A would win against X because constructive possession applies when the
person under color of title is actually possessing the land. This does not apply
to lot 2 because A was not in possession of it.
Color of Title - refers to a claim founded on a written instrument (deed or will) that is defective or invalid
 Actual possession under color of title may have advantage where the adverse possessor enters
into possession of only part of a property
 Problem 1 on PG 88
o Actual adverse possession for A of 40 acres
o O is in possession of 100 acres of land so O's possession blocks A's attempt to assert
constructive possession under color of title of the whole farm
o 2nd part - Prior constructive possession under color of title for O
 A would still lose


O has constructive adverse possession under color of title that predates A's for
the 60 acres
 A has actual possession of the 40's
o If statute has not run in O's favor, O still has better claim then A's to the 60 acres, but
might be worse then ultimate true owner
Problem 2 on PG 89
o A will win against X because made actual entry but not against Y
o If X signed deed, A would have ownership of lot 1, but would not effect lot 2
o If X deed signed and A entered lot 2,
 A would have constructive adverse possession under color of title for lot 2
Problems 1-3 (101-102)
1. 2000, A adversely enters land owned by O. 7 years later B tells A to leave and they're taking
over. A leaves and B enters into possession.
a. O owns land because statute of limitations has not passed for adverse possession
(unless it is decided that A and B are in privity and combined time to allow for tacking
the adverse possession.)
i.
Since adverse possession continued unbroken despite who continued it, B
would have a claim for adverse possession.
b. O can eject B.
i.
(A has better relative title, so A could eject B and O could eject either one)
ii.
No privity so can't tack
c. If the purpose of adverse possession is to lay ownership to those actually occupying the
land and making better use of it and to not allow it to lay in the hands of those with
actual title who fail to notice other possessors than tacking time of adverse possessors
makes sense. Sleeping policy then privity should not matter.
d. If A recovers possession from B 6 months later and O does nothing, A will own the land
10 years and sixth months, according to American Law of Property - favors the true
owner. Threat of force, argument that should be 10 years because continuous adverse
possession.
e. If A abandons (clear intent to relinquish ownership) land after 7 years and B
immediately goes into possession then by 2010, B will not own the land if O does
nothing because there is no privity so there is no tacking
2. A enters adversely on land owned by O in 1994. O dies in 1995, leaving a will giving land to B for
life, remainder to C. in 2010, B dies without ever having entered land.
a. A owns the land by adverse possession if met all elements. If not then C owns property
after B's death because entry is not required.
i.
RULE: once adverse possession begins, it is not defeated or interrupted by a
subsequent transfer
3. The owner of land, O, dies in 1995 leaving a will that leaves land to B for life, remainder to C.
1996, A adversely enters land. 2010, B dies.
a. C owns land. A enters against B's life estate. When B dies, C's remainder becomes
possessory, C's interest prevails over A's life estate. Statute of limitation does not run
against C until B dies. A had adverse possession of a life estate.
Problems 1-3 on 258 and 1-3 on 260
1. A has a life estate and then B has a remainder for life upon A's death. If A dies and then B dies, O
would own the land because future interest was retained in O by reversion because O started
with a fee simple absolute and carved out two life estates so English Common Law said there
has to be reversion once both life's are gone. Could go to O's heirs if O is no longer alive. If the
conveyance took place in 2018 and A and B both die, the land would go to the state unless a will
was created, issues, heirs, or collaterals.
a. "To A" is words of purchased and "for life" are words of limitations
b. "then to B forever"
i.
No fee simple absolute because had to use words of limitation "and his heirs"
c. In 2018, A would still have a life estate, but B would have remainder in fee simple
absolute
2. C has fee simple absolute estate
a. A has a life estate
b. B's heirs have a remainder in fee simple absolute
i.
B has no interest
3. B has no interest in Greenacre while A is alive as A has a fee simple. B has no legal interest in the
land and cannot prevent A from selling.
a. A has a fee simple absolute, B does not have a legal interest reachable by creditors. B
does not have a legal interest recognized by the estate system.
1. Fee simple absolute problem. B2 would own the land (rule of primogeniture - eldest son takes
by representation of the father, means or perpetuated wealth, and fortifying rigid gender
subordination). Under modern American law, A would have half interest and half interest to B's
children (they would own as tenants in common). B had no legal interest so could not devise
interest to wife. Wife is also not a heir to O.
2. Only if there are no ancestors and collaterals (wont revert to O, because A has fee simple
absolute)
3. A has life estate. B has a vested remainder in fee simple absolute. While B is dead and A has life
estate, the state has future interest (a vested remainder in fee simple absolute). If A then dies,
The state owns the estate and has a fee simple absolute (possession).
Problem in note 3 on pg 294

O conveys Blackacre “to A and her heirs so long as the premises are not used for sale of beer,
wine, or liquor, and if beer, wine, or liquor is sold on the premises O retains a right to reenter the premises.” Subsequently A opens a restaurant on Blackacre that serves several
dishes cooked with wine or flamed with brandy and at Sunday brunch offers a
complimentary glass of champagne. A’s restaurant is successful, and 11 years after its
opening B wants to buy it and add a bar. Advise B. Not enough facts to decide ambiguity.
Whether cooking with wine and gifting champagne is a breach. No breach because not
being sold. (could be argued cost is calculated into) (sale for charge of alcohol is not
met)
o "so long as" = fee simple determinable
 If A breached with use of wine and brandy then B should not buy from A
because A automatically forfeited
 O would have fee simple absolute
o "Right to re-enter" - fee simple subject to conditions subsequent
SOL on O's right to re-entry ran when A breached so B could purchase
 O might be barred by equitable doctrine of latches
 A may win quiet title for fee simple absolute
If condition not breached, A and B could negotiate for transferable but B needs to
know about condition of the defeasible fee

o
Problems on 316, 318, 321
i.
ii.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
i.
O owns a fee simple and makes the following transfers. In which cases is there a
reversion?
1. A has a life estate and B has a vested remainder in fee simple so no reversion
a. At death of B goes to heirs, if none goes to state, but does not go back
to O
2. A has a life estate and B has a vested remainder in fee tail that will pass to
her heirs
a. If B's bloodline runs out then reverts back to A
3. A has a life estate, B has a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute if she
reaches the age of 21 before A dies. There is a reversion if A dies before B
reaches 21. If B reaches 21 before A dies there is no reversion as B has a
remainder in fee simple
a. B has a vested remainder in fee simple once she is 21 - reversion
disappears when she reaches 21 before A dies
4. O has a reversion. O had fee simple absolute and conveyed term of years to A
for 20 years.
O has fee simple. A has a life estate and B has a vested remainder in life estate. O has
a reversion which he passes to C. If O dies leaving property to C if A and B die, C has
a reversion in fee simple and owns Blackacre
A has a life estate. B has a vested remainder in fee simple. O would have a vested
remainder in fee simple.
1. Contingent on the natural termination of the preceding estate
A has a life estate. B has a vested remainder in life estate. C has a vested remainder
in fee simple absolute. If the remainder to C was then to C and her heirs if C survives
A and B the interest C has would be a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. O
has reversion, property might revert to O if C, A , B all die at same time or if life
estate terminates prior to the death of the life tenant (forfeiture under doctrine of
waste)
The remainder is contingent because the person is unascertained and subject to
condition precedent. Reversion
The remainder is contingent. The remainder vests in B when B turns 21. When B's
other siblings reach 21 the vested remainder will be subject to partial divestment by
other members of the class. Remainder vested when B turns 21 subject to open
B has an executory interest as O divests the preceding interest (life estate of A) to B
if B gives A a proper funeral. Not a remainder because B's interest is not
immediately possessory upon the death of A. A has a life estate that reverts back to
O in fee simple until B gives a proper funeral, then B will be divested of the fee
simple.
Problems 1 & 2 on 334
1. A has a life estate. A's children have a remainder in fee simple absolute. B has a contingent
remainder in fee simple absolute. O has reversion
a. A has a life estate. A's children have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute
(unascertained parties). B has an alternative contingent remainder in fee simple
absolute. (condition precedent). O has reversion (if A died and did not have children)
i.
A has a life estate. C and D have a vested remainder in fee simple absolute
subject to open/partial divestment (if more siblings) and subject to complete
divestment by B's executory interest (if they die before A their interest goes
away). B has a shifting executory interest in fee simple absolute. 9divesting
preceding fee simple) Reversion disappears when C and D are born because
remainder that was contingent is now vested and ready to become possessory
so property cannot go back to O
ii.
D would have a vested fee simple absolute as the only child if survived A. B
would lose their executory interest. (terminated as soon as A had a surviving
heir - B's interest is only divested if A dies without surviving children)
b. A has life estate. C and D have a contingent remainder in fee simple absolute (they must
survive A). B has an alternative contingent remainder in fee simple absolute. O has
reversion in fee simple because possibility of life estate terminating prior to death of A
due to waste/forfeiture or simultaneous death (322).
c. A has a life estate. B has a vested remainder in fee simple absolute subject to
divestment by C and D's executory interest in fee simple absolute. C and D have a
shifting executory interest in fee simple. No reversion
 Subject to executory interest covers open more common to see vested remainder subject to
open
2. Don Little has a springing executory interest in the money. T's estate has the possessory
interest. Entity whose interest will be divested is the heirs or the residuary devisee if and when
don survives his wife. Future interest can be created in personal property. Risk that property will
no longer be there because it is convertible and transferable easily (challenge of remote vesting
- residuary devisee is under legal obligation not to impair dons interest) courts might post bond
to hold possessory interest to save executory interest
Practice Problems 310,311,334,335
Problems on Reading 5 and Definitions