Ravaj owns all the land egularly takes a stroll from her home across a worn path to the lake where she canoes, fishes, and dangles her feet in the water. When she takes a new job downtown in Big City where she lives she sells the home and lot labeled Uplands and Development above to Sonya, a local developer. She keeps the land labeled Riparian area for herself. The deed makes no mention of the lakefront lot but after the property sale was completed, Sonya told her she could come fish anytime she liked.
1. If Ravaj come back the weekend after she sells the property and walks across the area labeled Development to go fish in the lake what is her best defense to a claim of trespass brought against her by Sonya.
A. She has a profit a prendre to fish in the lake.
B. She has an easement by necessity to reach the lakefront lot.
C. She has an easement by estoppel to reach the lakefront lot.
D. She has an express right of way under the statute of frauds.
2. If the jurisdiction has a 7 year adverse possession statute and Ravaj continues to come to the lakefront property every weekend for the 7 year period then what would result?
A. She would obtain an easement by prescription over Sonya’s land.
B. She would not obtain an easement by prescription because Sonya granted her permission to cross her property.
C. She would obtain a profit a prendre to fish in the lake by prescription.
D. None of the above.
3. If Sonya puts a chain link fence up that blocks Ravaj’s access for 6 years and then Ravay cuts a hole in the fence and regularly passes through thereafter what would result?
A. Nothing, because a fence cannot affect the property rights of either party.
B. Sonya can successfully sue Ravaj for trespass since she prevented her from obtaining a prescriptive easement.
C. Sonya cannot sue Ravaj successfully for trespass since she her easement remains intact.
D. Sonya cannot sue Ravaj successfully for trespass because the fence was in violation of Ravaj’s profit a prendre to take fish from the lake.
4. Sonya begins using the path to walk down to the lake across the lakefront lot and Ravaj finds out a few months later and tells Sonya to stop crossing the lot to the lake. If Sonya continues and Ravaj brings a suit against her in trespass what would result?
A. Ravaj will prevail but only if she told Sonya after the sale that she could not use the path.
B. Ravaj will prevail regardless of what she told Sonya after the sale.
C. Sonya will prevail but only if Ravaj told her after the sale that she could use the path.
D. Sonya will prevail regardless of what Ravaj told her after the sale.
5. Ravaj records a restriction against the development of the lakefront lot so that “Sonya and any co-occupants that she has can enjoy the view of the lake.” The restriction is duly recorded in both the deed she retains and the deed provided to Sonya. Ten years later Sonya sells the house and the property labeled Development and Uplands in the diagram above to Carlos and Ravaj sells the lakefront lot to Darryl. If Darryl builds a 2 story cabin on the lake that blocks the view of the lake from the house and Carlos sues for breach of the restrictive covenant what would result.
A. Carlos will lose since the covenant did not run with the land.
B. Carlos will lose since the covenant did not touch and concern the land.
C. Darryl will win since the covenant was in writing.
D. Darryl will win since the covenant ran with the land.