Answer the following multiple-choice questions in a list numbered 1-16, providing a brief explanation for each answer choice: 
QUESTION 1
Alma, Baker, Charlie, and Diana each owned a home located on Bluebird Lane; they were the only homes located on the lane.  They entered into the following agreement:  “We, the undersigned, owning fee simple absolute in our respective properties, hereby covenant and agree on behalf of ourselves and our successors, heirs, and assigns, that the homes on our properties will always be painted blue.”  The agreement contained legal descriptions of each parcel, complied with the Statute of Frauds, was signed by each owner, and was recorded.  All four homes were then painted blue.  Alma later sold her home to Nancy, while Diana sold her home to Gus.  After Gus painted his house brown, Nancy sued him for damages on the theory that the agreement was a real covenant.  Which of the following is most likely?
		a)	The benefit of the covenant ran to Nancy, but the burden of the covenant did not run to Gus.
		b)	The benefit of the covenant did not run to Nancy, but the burden of the covenant ran to Gus.
		c)	The benefit of the covenant ran to Nancy, and the burden of the covenant ran to Gus.
		d)	The benefit of the covenant did not run to Nancy, and the burden of the covenant did not run to Gus.
QUESTION 2
Amy owned two lots which adjoined a public street.  Lot 1 was improved with a small shed and lighting equipment, while Lot 2 was unimproved.  For many years, Amy sold seasonal items on Lot 1:  Easter supplies each spring, fireworks each summer, pumpkins each fall, and Christmas trees each winter.  Amy’s customers for these sales often parked on Lot 2.  Last year, Amy sold Lot 1 to Bob, who planned to open a video game store on the land.  During the sale negotiations, Bob asked Amy:  “Will my customers be able to park on Lot 2, like your customers did?” Amy replied, laughing:  “How could I stop them?”  But Bob never used Lot 1; instead, he sold it to Carlos, who hoped to open an organic food store.  During the sale negotiations, Bob explained to Carlos:  “It’s OK with Amy if folks park on Lot 2.”  But recently Amy told Carlos that she would not allow his future customers to park on Lot 2.  Carlos sued Amy for a declaratory judgment that he has an implied easement by prior existing use to use Lot 2 for parking.  Who will win the lawsuit?
		a)	Amy because Amy did not use Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1.
		b)	Amy because Bob did not use Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1.
		c)	Amy because Carlos did not use Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1.
		d)	Carlos because the elements for an implied easement by prior use are satisfied.
QUESTION 3
Betty owned a 100-acre tract, which consisted of 80 acres of vacant dry land surrounding a 20-acre manmade lake called "Fish Lake.” She subdivided the land into 81 parcels: 80 one-acre lots adjoining the lake and the 20-acre lake parcel. Betty's advertising campaign to sell the lots included TV ads which urged viewers to "buy a lot at Fish Lake Estates, where you can fish from your own backyard!” Carl and 79 other buyers purchased one-acre lots in the development from Betty; each of these buyers received a warranty deed which provided, among other things: "It is agreed that Fish Lake will be maintained as a lake in perpetuity and shall be restricted and limited to lake use forever.” Carl and the other buyers all built homes on their lots and regularly fished in the lake. Betty then sold the lake parcel to Dave. Betty did not tell Dave that there were any restrictions on his right to use the lake parcel; and her deed to Dave did not mention any restrictions either. Dave inspected the lake parcel before he bought, and noticed people fishing there, but did not ask them any questions. Two months after buying the lake parcel, Dave drained the lake and announced his intention to subdivide the parcel into 20 one-acre lots. Carl filed suit against Dave, seeking to enforce the restriction as an equitable servitude to force him to fill the lake bed with water and maintain it as a lake. Who will win the lawsuit?
		a)	Dave because the Statute of Frauds is not satisfied.
		b)	Dave because the restriction does not touch and concern.
		c)	Dave because he had no notice of the restriction.
		d)	Carl because the equitable servitude elements are satisfied.
QUESTION 4
Connie owned a 10-acre parcel of forest land; she lived in a house located on the west half of the property. A highway adjoined the east side of her land. Connie reached her house by leaving the highway and driving west across her land on a gravel road. A thin black telephone line ran from a pole near the highway, west through the trees on Connie's land, and connected to the telephone system in her house. The line was mostly concealed in the tree foliage, but could be seen in a diligent inspection. A cell phone tower was installed near the house five years ago, and since then the local cell phone service has been far more reliable and better in quality than the traditional land line service. For this reason, over the last five years, Connie always made and received calls on her cell phone when she was at home; she never used the land line during that period. Last month, Connie sold the west half of her parcel to Ted. The deed which Connie delivered granted an express easement to Ted for access along the gravel road across the east half, but had no provision concerning the telephone line. Yesterday Connie told Ted that she intends to remove the line from her remaining land. What is the most likely basis for holding that Ted does not have an implied easement by prior existing use for the telephone line?
		a)	The prior use was not apparent.
		b)	The prior use was not continuous.
		c)	There is no reasonable necessity for the use.
		d)	The facts indicate that the parties intended not to create an easement for the phone line.
QUESTION 5
Dahlia owned a large lot in fee simple absolute. She decided to sever the lot into two parcels, Northacre and Southacre. At the moment of severance, Dahlia conveyed Southacre to Aldo. Her quitclaim deed read, in part: "to Aldo and heirs, together with an eight-foot right of way over Northacre to Southacre's northern edge for Aldo and his successors and assigns.” Using this eight-foot strip was the only convenient way that Aldo could access his property. Shortly after Dahlia conveyed Southacre, a new road opened bordering the southern edge of Southacre. Thereafter, Aldo always accesses his parcel from the new road. At the present time, which of the following best characterizes Aldo's easement?
		a)	Aldo has an implied easement by prior existing use.
		b)	Aldo has an implied easement by necessity.
		c)	Aldo has an express easement by reservation.
		d)	Aldo has an express easement by grant.
QUESTION 6
Dominic owns a large lot bordering a river. Dominic built his house on the western portion of the lot and constructed a large levee along his eastern lot line to protect against flooding. Dominic sold the eastern portion of his lot to Ronaldo. The deed read, in part: "For the benefit of Dominic, his successors and assigns, Ronaldo expressly promises on behalf of himself, his successors and assigns to maintain the structural integrity of the levee along his lot line.” Ronaldo promptly recorded his deed. Ronaldo then sold his lot to Nanda and a few years later Dominic sold his lot to Lela. Nanda is an agronomist and has planted a number of bushes and trees along the levee. Unfortunately, the root systems of these plants are beginning to affect the integrity of the levee, and an expert structural engineer has warned that any abnormally high river flow could breach the levee. Lela has sued Nanda, seeking damages based on Ronaldo's original promise to maintain the structural integrity of the levee. What is the likely outcome?
		a)	Lela will lose because the promise was made by Ronaldo and only he is liable for damages.
		b)	Lela will lose because the privity that is required to establish a real covenant is not present.
		c)	Lela will lose because Nanda’s positive acts of planting vegetation have not yet caused a breach of the levee.
		d)	Lela will be successful because the promise is a real covenant.
QUESTION 7
Fiona owns two adjacent parcels, Redacre and Blueacre. A public highway adjoins Redacre.  To reach Blueacre, Fiona travels from the highway along a gravel road over Redacre until she reaches Blueacre.   Blueacre does not adjoin a public road.  Fiona sells Blueacre to George.  The deed conveying title to George expressly provides that George will not receive an easement to cross Redacre.  Three days after the closing, Fiona gives George a license to cross Redacre to reach Blueacre.  But one week later, Fiona revokes the license.  Which of the following is correct?
		a)	George has an easement by necessity to cross Redacre.
		b)	George has an implied easement by prior existing use to cross Redacre.
		c)	George has an irrevocable license to cross Redacre.
		d)	George has no right to cross Redacre.
QUESTION 8
In 1900, Fred received an express easement by grant which allowed “travel over Gary’s land Farmacre in perpetuity” to reach Fred’s land Ranchacre.  In 2000, Paula obtained title to Farmacre.  Between 2000 and the present, no one used the easement over Farmacre because there is better access to Ranchacre by another road.  Tanya now purchases Ranchacre.  Tanya plans to develop a ranch-oriented resort on the land, which will include an elevated tram system that would allow visitors to travel 50 feet over the surface of Farmacre, suspended by ten towers to be built on that land.  Which of the following is correct?
		a)	The easement language will not be interpreted to include an elevated tram system.
		b)	Tanya cannot use the easement to support a more intensive use of Ranchacre than the use that existed in 1900.
		c)	The easement has been terminated by adverse possession.
		d)	The easement has been terminated by abandonment.
QUESTION 9
In 1998, Leo purchased a 100-acre tract of forest land, plus an adjacent 20-acre lake; the lake was frozen over in the winter, but provided wonderful recreational opportunities in the summer.  Leo rarely visited the property because he lived in a distant state.  A small part of Leo’s lake adjoined a 5-acre parcel which was owned by Zelda.  Twelve years ago, Zelda built a vacation cabin on her land; since then she and her family have used the cabin for six or seven weeks each summer.  During these visits, Zelda and her family usually swim, fish, and canoe on Leo’s lake for five days each week.  Last summer, Leo visited his property, spotted Zelda and her family swimming in the lake, and demanded that they “get out of my lake!”  Which of the following is most likely?
		a)	Zelda and her family have an implied easement by prior existing use to use the lake.
		b)	Zelda and her family have a prescriptive easement to use the lake if the statutory period is 12 years or less.
		c)	Zelda and her family have an easement by necessity to use the lake.
		d)	Zelda and her family have no right to use the lake.
QUESTION 10
Jayne owned Farmacre, a small farm surrounded by several residential parcels. Farmacre has been in Jayne's family for decades. Farmacre is burdened by an express easement, created in the early 1900's, that provides access to Homeacre (a five-acre parcel on Farmacre's eastern boundary) across Farmacre's northern edge. The easement reads, in part: "for ingress and egress by humans on foot or by horse-drawn wagon for the benefit of Homeacre.” Doug purchased Homeacre several decades ago and always crossed the easement by foot. However, for the past several years, he did not use the easement at all. Doug now wants to drive his SUV across the easement. In addition, Doug plans to subdivide Homeacre into 10 half-acre residential lots. He wants all of his purchasers to be able to drive their cars over the easement across Farmacre. Doug also purchased a lot to the north of Homeacre (Playville) on which he wants to build a small cabin for his children to play in. Which of the following statements is incorrect, in most jurisdictions?
		a)	Doug will be allowed to drive his SUV across the easement.
		b)	Doug’s purchasers will be able to use the easement.
		c)	Doug will be able to use the right of way to access Playville.
		d)	Doug’s easement was not terminated even though he had not used it for several years.
QUESTION 11
Layne and Helena were neighbors. Helena decided to demolish her existing house and build a new two-story dwelling. Helena was required to replace her old sewage line with a new underground sewage line because of the increased size of the house. The topography of Helena’s lot made it very expensive and inconvenient to connect the new sewage line to the public system to the east of Helena’s lot. However, it was very economical and convenient to run the line under a portion of Layne’s parcel and connect with the public system to the west. Helena and Layne talked and orally agreed that Helena could install her sewage line under Layne’s property. Twenty-five years have passed. Layne recently sent Helena a letter directing her “to make other arrangements” and stop the encroachment across his parcel. In most jurisdictions, can Helena continue to use the sewer line across Layne’s parcel?
		a)	Yes, because Helena has a prescriptive easement over Layne's property.
		b)	Yes, because Helena has an easement by estoppel over Layne's property.
		c)	No, because the parties’ oral agreement violates the Statute of Frauds and is not enforceable.
		d)	No, because Helena has a mere license which is revocable at the will of Layne.
QUESTION 12
Olive loved to fly radio-controlled model airplanes on her property Airacre.  Almost every day for 10 years, she stood on a hill located on the west half of Airacre and spent two hours steering an airplane through the airspace between 30 and 40 feet over all of Airacre, having it perform various aerial tricks.  Elmo, another model airplane enthusiast who was familiar with Olive’s weekend flying activity over both the west half and the east half of Airacre, purchased the west half of Airacre from her as a perfect site to fly his own model planes.  Last weekend, when Elmo stood on his land attempting to fly his model airplane through the airspace over the east half of Airacre, Olive protested; she told Elmo:  “Never fly airplanes over my land again!”  Elmo now claims to have an implied easement by prior existing use over the east half of Airacre.  What is the most likely outcome?
		a)	Elmo has an implied easement by prior existing use.
		b)	Elmo does not have an implied easement by prior existing use because the prior use was not apparent.
		c)	Elmo does not have an implied easement by prior existing use because the prior use was not continuous.
		d)	Elmo does not have an implied easement by prior existing use because there is no reasonable necessity for the use.
QUESTION 13
Oscar owned Redacre, a single-family home in a large city.  Oscar’s friend Carla owned Green Pond, a small freshwater lake located 30 miles from Redacre.  Two years ago, Carla executed and delivered a written instrument to Oscar, which provided that “Oscar is entitled to swim in Green Pond forever.”  The instrument complied with the Statute of Frauds, and Oscar recorded it immediately.  Thereafter, Oscar swam in Green Pond whenever the weather was warm.  Last month, Oscar conveyed his interests in Redacre and Green Pond to Beth.  Yesterday, when Beth went to Green Pond, Carla refused to let her swim in the lake.  What is the best justification for Carla’s refusal?
		a)	Oscar held a revocable license which ended when he tried to sell his interest.
		b)	Oscar held an easement in gross which was not transferable.
		c)	Oscar held an appurtenant easement which was not transferable.
		d)	Oscar never had a legal right to swim in Green Pond.
QUESTION 14
Raul owned Redacre, a 20-acre parcel of unimproved land.  The east side of Redacre adjoined Blueacre, a 50-acre farm owned by Bob.  Redacre did not adjoin a public road, but Raul held an express easement to travel from the north part of his land across Blueacre on a dirt road to reach Green Lane, a public road located on the east side of Blueacre.  The state then built a new public highway that adjoined the west boundary of Redacre; after the new highway was completed, Raul stopped using the dirt road across Blueacre, and instead reached Redacre from the new highway.  Raul told Bob:  “You might as well plant corn where the road is.  I won’t need it in the future.”  Bob accordingly plowed up the dirt road on Blueacre and planted corn there for the next six years.  Bob eventually purchased the south half of Redacre from Raul and began farming there.  After a flash flood destroyed the highway, Raul tried to cross Blueacre to reach Green Lane, but found that tall corn blocked his way.  Assume that the period for prescription in this jurisdiction is five years.  Which of the following is correct?
		a)	Raul’s easement was terminated by abandonment.
		b)	Raul’s easement was terminated by prescription.
		c)	Raul’s easement was terminated by merger.
		d)	Raul’s easement was not terminated.
QUESTION 15
Sienna owned two contiguous parcels. One year ago, she built a house on the eastern most parcel (Eastacre), but failed to develop the western most parcel (Westacre). Given the topography of Eastacre, it would have been extremely difficult and very costly to construct an access road to connect her house with the county road to the east. Consequently, Sienna built a dirt roadway over Westacre to connect her house with a county road to the west and used the roadway almost daily. A few months later, Sienna sold Westacre to Josie. Shortly thereafter, a new state highway was built bordering Eastacre on the north. It then became very convenient for Sienna to access her home directly from the highway rather than driving across Westacre. Recently when Sienna attempted to drive her car across Westacre, she found her access barred by a new gate Josie had erected. Josie was standing by the gate and shouted: "Access your home by means of the state highway. I no longer want you on my land.” Traditionally, which easement to cross Westacre, if any, would Sienna have?
		a)	An implied easement by prior existing use.
		b)	An implied easement by necessity.
		c)	A prescriptive easement.
		d)	No easement. Any existing right of way was terminated when the new state highway was constructed.
QUESTION 16
Which of the following provisions in a set of CC&Rs for a common interest community of single-family tract homes is most likely to be unenforceable under the test in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association?
		a)	“No cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind may be parked in the driveway of any house at any time.”
		b)	“Front yards and back yards shall be kept free of children’s toys and other play equipment at all times.”
		c)	“No public displays of affection are permitted at any time.”
		d)	“Every owner will plant and maintain a vegetable garden on his or her property during the usual growing season.”