LawSchool.Life

TheWalrus wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:50 pm

It's just an exception.

MIWITW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:26 pm

Here's one.

"Which of the following parties cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser of land?

A) A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land.

B) A purchaser from an heir to the land.

C) A devisee of the land.

D) A mortgagee of the land.


------

Spoiler:

Answer:
A devisee of the land (c) cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser (“BFP”) of land. Notice and race-notice recording acts protect BFPs from prior unrecorded conveyances of the same property. A BFP is a purchaser who takes land without notice of a prior instrument and pays valuable consideration. Donees, heirs, and devisees are not BFPs because they do not give value for their interests; i.e., they are not purchasers.
A mortgagee of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Mortgagees for value (but not those who receive a mortgage only as security for a preexisting debt) are treated as purchasers, either expressly by recording acts or by judicial classification. Thus, mortgagees for value who take without notice can be protected as BFPs.
A purchaser from an heir to the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Donees, heirs, and devisees themselves are not purchasers and thus cannot be BFPs. However, one who buys land from such a party will be protected against a prior unrecorded conveyance from the record owner.
A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Under the shelter rule, anyone who takes from a BFP will be treated like a BFP (i.e., will prevail against any interest her transferor would have prevailed against). This rule exists to protect the BFP by preserving his ability to convey property. It applies even when his transferee had actual knowledge of a prior unrecorded interest or did not take for substantial pecuniary value (i.e., was a donee). However, a non-BFP who previously had title cannot acquire BFP status by selling the land to a BFP and then repurchasing it.

How is it that "Donees, heirs, and devisees are not BFPs because they do not give value for their interests," but "A donee from a bona fide purchaser of the land can be protected as a BFP of land. Under the shelter rule, anyone who takes from a BFP will be treated like a BFP (i.e., will prevail against any interest her transferor would have prevailed against)." ??????????

KernKraft wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:29 am

Painter contracts with homeowner to paint his house for $1,000. Homeowner is not satisfied of the job and refuses to pay (in good faith). Painter keeps caling him to get paid. Eventually, homeowner sends him a letter saying "I'll give you $800, but only if you agree to repaint the house". No response from painter. Two days later, painter receives a check for $800 from homeowner and cashes it right away. Is homeowner now entitled to have the house repainted?

A) Yes, because painter impliedly promised to repaint by accepting the money
B) No, because there is no consideration to support the painter's implied promise, if any

Correct answer:

Spoiler:

A.

So can we just consider the implied promise of the painter, his consideration for the accord to repaint? I kind of get the answer, but B is tempting too.

On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated law school:

The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1.

A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner.

The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in a student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally.

On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore:
The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. The student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15.

On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.