The attached document contains a few problems that apply principles of law as learnt in class
law_question_1.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
QUESTION 1
In 2000, Wife purchased Blackacre, a commercial building. In 2002, Wife
married Husband, and thereafter Husband managed Blackacre by collecting rents,
negotiating leases and making repairs and improvements that increased the value of
Blackacre. Wife continued to own Blackacre in her own name.
At the time of the marriage, Husband was employed as a firefighter in C City,
where the couple lived. Husband worked an overnight shift, which allowed him the
flexibility to manage Blackacre.
In July 2010, Husband negotiated a lease for one of the commercial units in
Blackacre with Tenant, the operator of a retail store, for a five-year term ending in June
2015. In addition to the rent, the lease required Tenant to be responsible for all repairs to
the store.
After the lease expired in June 2015, Tenant remained in possession, paying the
rent each month. In December 2015, a water pipe burst in the store, causing extensive
damage. Tenant remained in possession but refused to pay any further rent or to repair
the damage to the store, claiming that, because the lease had expired, he was no longer
required to make repairs.
Shortly after their marriage, Husband and Wife had purchased a lot in a
subdivision of 50 lots owned by Owner. The deed for every lot Owner sold in the
subdivision, including Husband’s and Wife’s lot, contained a restrictive covenant stating
that only a single-family house could be built on each lot, and that the covenant would be
binding on all successors in interest. The deeds for all of the lots were recorded with the
county clerk. In 2008, Husband and Wife built a single-family house on their lot and
moved in.
In 2013, Husband and Wife sold the house to Wife’s sister, Val. The deed from
Husband and Wife to Val did not contain the restrictive covenant.
Val decided to convert the house into a two-family residence and rent the second
apartment. Val was about to begin the conversion when she received a letter from
Owner, who still owns some lots in the subdivision. Owner threatened legal action to
prevent Val from converting the house into a two-family residence in violation of the
restrictive covenant contained in the deed from Owner to Husband and Wife. Val
contends that the restrictive covenant is invalid as an unreasonable restriction on her use
of her property and, in any event, is not applicable to her, as it does not appear in her
deed.
2
As an employee of C City, Husband has participated in C City’s pension plan
since before his marriage to Wife. For each month and year of service, he receives
incremental credits which enter into the computation of what his pension will be when he
reaches age 60. Husband is vested in the plan, and if he leaves C City employment
before reaching age 60, he will nevertheless receive a pension at age 60.
Husband continues to manage Blackacre, which has substantially increased in
value. Wife is considering seeking a divorce from Husband.
1. If Wife seeks a divorce, under equitable distribution:
(a) To what extent, if any, will Husband have the right to share in the value of Blackacre?
(b) To what extent, if any, will Wife have the right to share in the value of Husband’s pension plan?
2. What liability, if any, does Tenant have for rent and the repairs?
3. Is the restrictive covenant valid and enforceable against Val?
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments