Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
1. Which of the following will determine whether the business woman will prevail?
The business woman learned of the conveyance to the buyer's daughter and the sale by the daughter to the man one week after the conveyance of Lot 2 from the daughter to the man. The business woman promptly brought an appropriate action against the man to enforce rights created in him by the deed of the business woman to the buyer. The business woman tendered the amount paid by the man into the court for whatever disposition the court deemed proper. The common law Rule Against Perpetuities is unmodified by statute.
Immediately thereafter, the buyer's daughter sold Lot 2 to a man at the then fair market value of Lot 2. The sale was completed by the delivery of deed and payment of the purchase price. At no time did the buyer or his daughter offer to sell Lot 2 to the business woman.
Three years after delivery and recording of the deed and payment of the purchase price, the buyer became ill and moved to a climate more compatible with his health. The buyer's daughter orally offered to purchase the premises from the buyer at its then fair market value. The buyer declined his daughter's offer but instead deeded Lot 2 to his daughter as a gift.
In the event the buyer, his heirs or assigns, decide to sell the property hereby conveyed and obtain a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase Lot 2 and the improvements thereon on terms and conditions acceptable to the buyer, said Lot 2 and improvements shall be offered to the business woman, her heirs or assigns, on the same terms and conditions. The business woman, her heirs or assigns, as the case may be, shall have ten days from said offer to accept said offer and thereby to exercise said option.
A business woman was the owner in fee simple of adjoining lots known as Lot 1 and Lot 2. She built a house in which she took up residence on Lot 1. Thereafter, she built a house on Lot 2, which she sold, house and lot, to a buyer. Consistent with the contract of sale and purchase, the deed conveying Lot 2 from the business woman to the buyer contained the following clause:
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The right of first refusal was clearly violated by the buyer and his daughter. The issue the business woman must overcome in order to prevail is a determination of whether the vague conditional wording of the right of first refusal violated the RAP. While the RAP generally does not apply to interests retained by the grantor, it does apply to options and rights of first refusal if they are mere contract or covenant rights.
A is incorrect. The business woman placed a right of first refusal into the deed she sold to the buyer. There is no dispute regarding an agreement outside the writing, so the parol evidence rule will not apply.
C is incorrect. The buyer's oral discussion with his daughter regarding the purchase of Lot 2 is irrelevant because he refused to sell and instead deeded the lot to her as a gift; there is no Statute of Frauds issue regarding the sale of land (thus triggering the right of first refusal) because no oral sales agreement was reached.
D is incorrect. The man does not have the protection of a bona fide purchaser because he had constructive notice of the deed's restrictions, which were properly recorded and cannot be circumvented through the alienation of land by gift; only a purchaser for value can provide the shelter of superior title. The jurisdiction's type of recording statute is thus irrelevant to the resolution of this dispute.