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.
22. In this action, the court should decide for
The teacher brought an appropriate action against the landowner to recover the teacher's expenses incurred in defending against the adjoining owner's action to quiet title to Blackacre.
A landowner owned Blackacre in fee simple and conveyed Blackacre to a teacher by warranty deed. An adjoining owner asserted title to Blackacre and brought an appropriate action against the teacher to quiet title to Blackacre. The teacher demanded that the landowner defend the teacher's title under the deed's covenant of warranty, but the landowner refused. The teacher then successfully defended at her own expense.
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
The covenant for warranty is a covenant wherein the grantor agrees to defend on behalf of the grantee any lawful or reasonable claims of title by a third party and to compensate the grantee for any loss sustained by the claim of superior title. This covenant is generally considered to be similar to the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The covenant for warranty is not breached until a third party interferes with possession of the grantee. The covenant is not breached by the grantor's refusal to defend the title against a wrongful claim by a third party.
The covenant for warranty is not breached until a third party interferes with the possession of the grantee or her successors. However, a covenant of warranty is not breached by the covenantor's refusal to defend title against a wrongful claim or eviction by a third party.
C is correct. In this case, the adjoining owner did not interfere with the teacher's possession, nor did the adjoining owner bring a valid claim that he was able to succeed on. Consequently, the landowner did not breach the covenant of warranty by not defending the lawsuit for quiet title against the teacher. The landowner would only be required to defend or reimburse the teacher for lawful or reasonable claims for title. Because the landowner conveyed good title, and did not fail to defend against any valid claims that existed at the time of the conveyance, the landowner should prevail.
A is incorrect. As explained above, the covenant is not breached by the grantor's refusal to defend a WRONGFUL claim of title by a third party.
B is incorrect. All warranty deeds will have the covenant of warranty. However, the teacher would only be entitled to recover if the adjoining owner's claim was successful, therefore this answer is incorrect.
D is incorrect. The grantor had no obligation to quiet title for a wrongful claim of title from a third party.