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.
23. In such action, the niece should recover
The sister failed to pay the real estate taxes due for Lots 1 and 2. To prevent a tax sale of the fee simple, the niece paid the taxes and demanded that the sister reimburse her for same. When the sister refused, the niece brought an appropriate action against the sister to recover the amount paid.
Except for the statutes relating to probate and those relating to real estate taxes, there is no applicable statute.
A land owner owned in fee simple Lots 1 and 2 in an urban subdivision. The lots were vacant and unproductive. They were held as a speculation that their value would increase. The land owner died and, by his duly probated will, devised the residue of his estate (of which Lots 1 and 2 were part) to his sister for life with remainder in fee simple to his niece. The land owner's executor distributed the estate under appropriate court order, and notified the sister that future real estate taxes on Lots 1 and 2 were her responsibility to pay.
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
D is correct. Here, the sister held a life estate, and the niece held a vested remainder. Although it is the sister's responsibility to pay the taxes, the sister is only responsible for paying taxes in an amount equal to the income she receives from the property, which in this case is $0. Thus, even though the sister is responsible for the taxes, the niece will not be able to recover any of the money she paid for the sister to cover the taxes, because the property was producing no income. The courts see this as the niece protecting her remainder, and the niece will not recover from the sister.
A is incorrect. Ordinarily, a life tenant (sister in this case) is obligated to pay property taxes, and interest on any mortgage, on property she is entitled to possess. These carrying costs are typically borne by the life tenant because the life tenant enjoys the fruits of her possession of the property (for example, rental income, income from the sale of crops or timber). However, this obligation extends only to the extent of the income generated from the land or if the life tenant is actually using the land. Since the lots were unproductive and generated no income to the sister in this case, and the sister was not living on the lots, the niece has no recourse against the sister.
B is incorrect. Even if the niece could prevail in her claim for contribution from the life tenant, the measure of damages would be the amount of taxes the niece paid and not the net present value of interest that would accrue on this amount over sister's life.
C is incorrect. It doesn't matter whether sister was the only one entitled to possession of the land, since the lots were entirely unproductive and generated no income. As a practical matter, sister's failure to pay the taxes could result in a tax sale, but if it does, sister is no worse off since the land is unproductive; only the niece, as the remainder holder of this speculative land investment, stands to gain if the property value increases over time.