Question: Can specific instances of prior conduct be introduced to show that something was not an accident or mistake?

Answer: Yes, specific instances of prior conduct can be introduced to show that something was not an accident or mistake. For example, if a young man marries a wealthy older woman who drowns in the bathtub and it is discovered that this has happened with three different women, the prosecution may introduce the prior deaths to prove absence of mistake.


Question: Is character evidence generally admissible in civil and criminal actions?

Answer: No, generally, character evidence is inadmissible in civil and criminal actions. One exception to this rule is that specific instances of prior bad conduct may be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.


Question: Can a character witness testify that he is aware the defendant turned down prior opportunities to steal?

Answer: No. A character witness cannot testify that he is aware the defendant turned down prior opportunities to steal as specific instances of the defendant's good conduct are not admissible.


Question: Can a defendant introduce evidence of his good character as inconsistent with the type of crime charged?

Answer: Yes. A defendant may introduce evidence of his good character as inconsistent with the type of crime charged, but proof of good character offered by the defendant must be in the form of reputation testimony or opinion testimony.


Question: If the defendant is charged with theft, can a witness testify that the defendant has a reputation for being honest?

Answer: Yes. If the defendant is charged with theft, a witness can testify that the defendant has a reputation for being honest. However, specific instances of the defendant's good conduct are not admissible.


Question: How may character evidence be offered when it is admissible?

Answer: When character evidence is admissible, it may be offered through reputation and opinion testimony on defense and through specific instances on cross, unless character is an essential element of the crime or defense, whereby specific instances of good conduct are admissible on defense.


Question: When may character evidence be admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character on a particular occasion?

Answer: Character evidence may be admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with their character on a particular occasion when: (1) character is an essential element of the crime; (2) it is offered to show motive, intent, identity, lack of absence/mistake, knowledge, plan or preparation; and (3) under the Mercy Rule where a defendant can offer good character (pertinent character traits) about himself and testimony about the victim's character.


Question: Can a defendant introduce evidence of pertinent character traits relevant to the case?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of pertinent character traits relevant to the case. For example, if the defendant is charged with theft, fraud, or some other offense involving dishonesty, the defendant is permitted to introduce evidence of his honest character, or if the defendant is charged with a violent crime, the defendant can introduce evidence of his peaceful character.


Question: If the defendant is accused of a violent crime such as assault or battery, can the defendant call a witness to testify that the defendant is of good reputation for peacefulness?

Answer: Yes. If the defendant is accused of a violent crime such as assault or battery, the defendant can call a witness to testify that the defendant is of good reputation for peacefulness. However, the witness cannot testify to the defendant's character for truthfulness unless the defendant's truthfulness was attacked while he was testifying.


Question: Can a second witness be cross-examined about a first witness's past conduct if the second witness supports the first witness's credibility?

Answer: Yes. If a second witness supports the credibility of a first witness, the second witness can be cross-examined about knowledge of past conduct by the first witness if there is a good faith basis for believing that the past conduct did occur and if the past conduct would contradict or change the second witness's description of the first witness's reputation for honesty.


Question: In a criminal fraud case, are prior convictions for fraud admissible?

Answer: Yes, in a criminal fraud case, prior convictions for fraud are admissible to both impeach the defendant and to prove that the defendant committed the crime.


Question: In defamation cases, is character evidence regarding the plaintiff's reputation in the community admissible?

Answer: Yes, in defamation cases, where the plaintiff's character or reputation is considered in issue, character evidence regarding the plaintiff's reputation in the community is admissible to determine injury to reputation.


Question: In an attempted murder trial, is evidence that the defendant once threatened another person with a weapon admissible?

Answer: No, in an attempted murder trial, evidence that the defendant once threatened another person with a weapon is improper character evidence and therefore inadmissible unless it is used to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.


Question: At a murder trial, can a defendant call witnesses to testify that the defendant has a reputation in their community as a peaceable man?

Answer: Yes, at a murder trial, a defendant can call witnesses to testify that the defendant has a reputation in their community as a peaceable man, but witnesses cannot testify that the defendant is a truthful person since it is not pertinent to whether the defendant committed the murder.


Question: Is evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts admissible to prove the character of a person to show propensity?

Answer: No, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show propensity, although it is admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.


Question: Is evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization admissible?

Answer: Yes, evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.


Question: Is corroborating testimony regarding a unique weapon used in multiple crimes admissible?

Answer: Yes, corroborating testimony regarding a unique weapon used in multiple crimes is admissible to establish an identifying circumstance.


Question: On a cross-examination in a contract cause of action, is it proper to ask about the witness's reputation as the neighborhood alcoholic?

Answer: No, on a cross-examination in a contract cause of action, it is not proper to ask about the witness's reputation as the neighborhood alcoholic.


Question: If a defendant introduces evidence of good general character, how may the prosecution rebut?

Answer: If a defendant introduces evidence of good general character, the prosecution may rebut by reputation or opinion evidence of the defendant's poor character and may use specific acts evidence during its cross-examination of the defendant's good-character witnesses.


Question: On the cross-examination of a defendant, is it proper to ask about a prior conviction for tax fraud?

Answer: Yes, on the cross-examination of a defendant, asking about a prior conviction for tax fraud is proper to show that the defendant is inclined to lie.


Question: Can a defendant charged with murder show that he has the general character of being law-abiding and the narrower trait of being peaceable?

Answer: Yes. A defendant charged with murder is allowed to show that he has the general character of being law-abiding and the narrower trait of being peaceable.


Question: Can a defendant show the character of the victim to support the defendant's theory of self-defense?

Answer: Yes. A defendant can show the character of the victim by use of reputation or opinion evidence to show the victim was the aggressor and support the defendant's theory of self-defense.


Question: Is a defendant's opinion evidence of his good character for truth and veracity admissible if the trait is not pertinent to the case?

Answer: No. A defendant's opinion evidence of his good character for truth and veracity is inadmissible if the trait is not pertinent to the case.


Question: Is evidence by a criminal defendant that he has a good general character admissible?

Answer: Yes. Evidence by a criminal defendant that he has a good general character is admissible to show the improbability of committing the crime.


Question: In a negligence action, is testimony that the defendant had a reputation in the community of being reckless admissible to show negligence?

Answer: No, in a negligence action, testimony that the defendant had a reputation in the community of being reckless is not admissible to show negligence.


Question: Is the cross-examination of a defendant regarding a prior conviction proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to the defendant?

Answer: Yes. The cross-examination of a defendant regarding a prior conviction is proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to the defendant.


Question: In a slander case where someone is called a thief, is evidence that the person has stolen in the past admissible?

Answer: Yes. If you're being sued for slander because you called someone a thief, evidence that the person has stolen in the past is admissible because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly in issue.


Question: If character is called into question, what type of evidence is allowed?

Answer: If character is called into question, only evidence about that particular character trait is allowed.


Question: In a defamation case where charity is the issue, is testimony from a witness about the plaintiff's honesty admissible?

Answer: No, testimony from a witness about the plaintiff's honesty is inadmissible as nonprobative if charity is the issue in a defamation case.


Question: When is character evidence admissible in criminal trials?

Answer: Character evidence is admissible in criminal trials if offered by the defendant to show character not in keeping with the offense charged. The evidence is admitted by calling another witness whose testimony is limited to opinion or reputation.


Question: Is character evidence generally admissible to prove propensity in criminal or civil cases?

Answer: No, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove propensity in criminal or civil cases.


Question: How may the prosecution rebut evidence of the victim's violent character offered by the defendant?

Answer: The prosecution may rebut by offering evidence of the victim's good character for that trait or the defendant's bad character for that trait.


Question: What type of evidence may a criminal defendant offer to prove that the victim was the first aggressor?

Answer: A criminal defendant may offer evidence of the victim's violent character to prove that the victim was the first aggressor by reputation or opinion only.


Question: Is evidence of the routine practice of an organization relevant to prove conduct on a particular occasion?

Answer: Yes, evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses.


Question: What are the requirements for an expert opinion to be admissible under Rule 702?

Answer: In addition to the expert opinion being based on sufficient facts or data under Rule 702, the expert opinion must be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness must have applied those principles and methods in a reliable manner to the facts of the case.


Question: What happens if an expert ignores recent studies and relies on insufficient studies to support his conclusions?

Answer: If an expert ignores recent studies and the studies the expert relied on are not sufficient to support his conclusions, the expert opinion may be excluded as unreliable under Rule 702.


Question: What is the scope of an expert witness's testimony regarding the defendant's mental disorder?

Answer: An expert witness's testimony is confined to giving an opinion as to whether the defendant had a serious mental disorder at the time of the offense, explaining the symptoms and characteristics of any diagnosis given, and providing other testimony regarding the defendant's mental status and motivation. The expert witness cannot give an ultimate opinion on whether the defendant was legally insane at the time of the alleged crime.


Question: Can an expert witness express a legal conclusion directly related to the ultimate issue of the case?

Answer: No. An expert witness may not express a legal conclusion directly related to the ultimate issue of the case, such as whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or whether a legal standard has been met.


Question: What are the three basic criteria required to permit the testimony of an expert witness?

Answer: The three basic criteria required to permit the testimony of an expert witness are: (1) the expert is qualified to give an opinion on the subject matter; (2) the state of the art or scientific knowledge permits a reasonable opinion to be given by the expert; and (3) the subject matter goes beyond the understanding of the average layman.


Question: What is the role of a trial judge regarding expert testimony to prove causation?

Answer: The trial judge is responsible for making sure the expert testimony is relevant and grounded in scientific research. Before an otherwise qualified expert may testify as to causation, the proponent of the evidence must establish that the evidence is relevant, helpful to the jury, and that the methodology employed by the expert is reliable.


Question: Can an expert testify as to the way drug dealers operate and the meaning of code words used by dealers?

Answer: Yes. An expert may testify as to the way drug dealers operate and the meaning of code words that dealers use, as long as the testimony is based on their expert opinion and not on the defendant's specific mental processes.


Question: Can an expert's opinion on an ultimate issue of the case be admissible in a civil case?

Answer: Yes, in a civil case, an expert can testify to a person's mental state or condition. For example, an expert may testify that a homeowner was mentally unstable but had an intense fear of fire in a negligence case.


Question: Can an expert's opinion on an ultimate issue of the case be admissible in a criminal case?

Answer: No, in a criminal case, an expert may not give an opinion as to whether a criminal defendant did or did not possess the mental state or condition that constitutes an element or defense of the crime charged. The expert can only diagnose a mental condition and explain what it is.


Question: Is an expert's testimony concerning the defendant's mental state or condition at the time of the crime admissible?

Answer: No. An expert's testimony that expresses an opinion concerning the defendant's mental state or condition at the time of the crime is inadmissible since only the jury may address that ultimate issue.


Question: Can a lay witness testify that a voice on a recording matches the voice heard on a different recording identified to the witness by someone else?

Answer: No. A lay witness cannot testify that a voice on a recording matches the voice heard on a different recording and identified to the witness by someone else since it is not based on the witness's personal knowledge.


Question: Can you cross-examine an expert witness with specific acts that bear on his capacity as an expert?

Answer: Yes. You can cross-examine an expert witness with specific acts that bear on his capacity as an expert.


Question: Is a non-expert's analysis of a signature an accepted method of authenticating a person's signature on a document?

Answer: No. A non-expert's analysis of a signature is not an accepted method of authenticating a person's signature on a document.


Question: Is asking an expert witness if he failed tests related to his field admissible?

Answer: Yes, asking an expert witness if he failed tests related to his field is admissible because it is relevant to the weight to be given to the expert's testimony.


Question: Can an expert listen to the evidence in court and then testify, basing his opinion on the facts made known to him at the trial?

Answer: Yes. An expert can listen to the evidence in court and then testify, basing his opinion on the facts made known to him at the trial.


Question: Can a cocaine addict be regarded as an expert in ascertaining whether a drug is cocaine?

Answer: Yes. A cocaine addict can be regarded as an expert in ascertaining whether a drug is cocaine.


Question: Can a treatise be used on direct or cross-examination of an expert and be read to the jury as substantive evidence?

Answer: Yes. If a party can establish that a treatise is reliable authority, then the treatise may be used on direct or cross-examination of an expert, and the treatise may be read to the jury as substantive evidence.


Question: Can a letter attesting to an expert's qualifications be considered by the judge without regard to the hearsay rule?

Answer: Yes. A letter attesting to an expert's qualifications may be considered by the judge only, without regard to the hearsay rule.


Question: Can a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind be used to prove past facts?

Answer: No. A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind cannot be used to prove past facts that the declarant remembers or believes.


Question: Is a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind or emotional, sensory, or physical condition an exception to the hearsay rule?

Answer: Yes, generally, a statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind or emotional, sensory, or physical condition is an exception to the hearsay rule which covers statements of intent, belief, attitude, motive, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health.


Question: Is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth admissible?

Answer: No. An out-of-court statement offered for its truth is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule or there are circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, necessity, and notice.


Question: What does the Settlement Privilege prohibit?

Answer: The Settlement Privilege prohibits the use of settlement offers or statements made in furtherance of negotiating settlements to prove liability. In criminal cases, statements made by a defendant to the prosecutor during plea negotiations are generally inadmissible, but admissions made during police questioning are usually admissible as straightforward admissions by a party opponent.


Question: Are admissions by parties treated as hearsay or nonhearsay?

Answer: Admissions by parties are treated as nonhearsay, and the admission of an employee may be admissible as a vicarious admission of the party in certain instances.


Question: What must be done if an out-of-court statement quotes another out-of-court statement?

Answer: If an out-of-court statement quotes another out-of-court statement, each statement must be analyzed independently, and the statement is admissible only if both hearsay statements fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule.


Question: Are settlement discussions or offers of compromise admissible as indications of fault, liability, or damage?

Answer: No, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, settlement discussions or offers of compromise are not admissible as any kind of indication of fault, liability, or damage, provided there is a claim and a dispute as to liability or the amount/share of liability.


Question: If a child suffers from a goat bite at a defendant's petting zoo, and the defendant does not dispute his liability and says, 'I'd like to give you this check for $200 because I don't feel good about it,' is the statement admissible in a personal injury trial?

Answer: Yes. The statement is admissible in a personal injury trial against him as the statement of a party-opponent since it is relevant to his liability and was not made in the course of settlement of a disputed claim.


Question: Is hearsay included within hearsay excluded under the hearsay rule?

Answer: No, hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined out-of-court statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.


Question: Can a statement be admissible as non-hearsay if it was not intended to demonstrate the truth of the matter asserted?

Answer: Yes. An out-of-court statement is admissible as non-hearsay if the statement was not intended to demonstrate the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to demonstrate the effect upon the listener.


Question: What is the doctrine of limited admissibility?

Answer: Under the doctrine of limited admissibility, a statement that is inadmissible hearsay to prove the truth of the statement may nevertheless be admitted to show the statement's effect on the hearer or reader. In a negligence case where knowledge of a danger is the issue, a third person's statement of warning is admissible for the limited purpose of showing knowledge or notice on the part of a listener.


Question: When is a statement not hearsay if offered against a party?

Answer: A statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.


Question: Under the Best Evidence Rule, when are audio recordings of a party admissible?

Answer: Under the Best Evidence Rule, audio recordings of a party are admissible only where there is a need to prove the content of the recording. If a witness has independent knowledge, the audio recordings are not admissible, but the witness's testimony of the party's statements is still admissible as admissions of a party-opponent.


Question: Can a witness testify as to the defendant's prior admission if the defendant denies making it at trial?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant denies making an admission at trial, a witness can testify as to the defendant's prior admission. The witness's testimony is admissible both to impeach the defendant's testimony as a prior inconsistent statement and as substantive evidence because it is an admission of a party-opponent.


Question: Are statements that constitute verbal acts or legally operative words hearsay?

Answer: No, statements that constitute verbal acts or legally operative words are not hearsay because they are not offered for the truth.


Question: Is a statement by a party that implies fault or an admission of negligence admissible?

Answer: Yes. A statement by a party that implies fault or an admission of negligence is admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule, although statements specific to settlement negotiations or offers to pay medical expenses are not admissible.


Question: Is a wife's testimony that her unavailable husband told her that the defendant had threatened his life admissible?

Answer: No. A wife's testimony that her unavailable husband told her that the defendant had threatened his life is inadmissible as multiple hearsay.


Question: Are out-of-court statements admissible if they are offered to show the effect of the statements on the defendant?

Answer: Yes, out-of-court statements are admissible if the statements are offered to show the effect of the statements on the defendant rather than for the truth of the matter asserted. This is not hearsay.


Question: Is an admission by an employee of a party-opponent admissible if the admission was made after the declarant stopped working for the party-opponent?

Answer: No. An admission by an employee of a party-opponent is inadmissible hearsay if the admission was made after the declarant stopped working for the party-opponent. The employee's statement must be made when the employee was still working for the employer.


Question: Can testimony be offered concerning a witness's prior identification of the defendant if the witness refuses to testify at trial?

Answer: No, testimony cannot be offered concerning a witness's prior identification of the defendant if the witness refuses to testify at trial. It is hearsay not within any exception.


Question: Is a witness's testimony that the defendant silently acknowledged a statement admissible?

Answer: Yes. A witness's testimony that the defendant silently acknowledged a statement is admissible as an adoption of the statement and may be offered into evidence as an admission of a party-opponent, and it will not constitute hearsay.


Question: Does the marital communications privilege survive divorce and death?

Answer: Yes. The marital communications privilege survives divorce and death.


Question: If a defendant becomes aware of an accidental disclosure of a privileged document and does not seek the return of the document until the day before trial, does this constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege?

Answer: Yes. If the defendant becomes aware of the accidental disclosure and does not seek the return of the document until the day before trial, this constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege regarding the disclosed document.


Question: If a defendant inadvertently turns over a document during discovery containing communications between the defendant and its counsel regarding the litigation, does this operate as a subject matter waiver?

Answer: No, if a defendant inadvertently turns over a document during discovery containing communications between the defendant and its counsel regarding the litigation, this inadvertent/accidental disclosure of protected materials does not operate as a subject matter waiver.


Question: Under Rule 502, when does waiver extend to undisclosed communications or information?

Answer: Under Rule 502, waiver never extends to undisclosed communications or information unless the waiver was intentional. This means waiver can only be found in such situations if the disclosing party was aware not merely that he was showing a document to his adversary and that it was arguably subject to some privilege, but also knew and intended that such disclosure would result in a waiver of the privilege.


Question: What does the attorney-client privilege apply to?

Answer: The attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications from a client to a lawyer for purposes of obtaining legal advice and services. Observations of a client's demeanor and fee information are not privileged; likewise, information about the fact of employment and the identity of the client is generally not covered by the privilege unless the revelation of identity would reveal the content of lawyer-client communications.


Question: Can jointly represented clients assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to their communications with a lawyer on a matter of common interest?

Answer: Yes, two or more jointly represented clients may assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to their communications with a lawyer on a matter of common interest to the co-clients, but they may not assert the privilege with respect to these communications in any subsequent litigation between the former co-clients.


Question: If an attorney is consulted and retained by two clients to establish a business, can the privilege be invoked for communications made to the attorney in subsequent litigation between the clients?

Answer: No, if an attorney is consulted and retained by two clients to establish a business, the privilege cannot be invoked for communications made to the attorney retained in common due to subsequent litigation between the clients.


Question: If a defendant and co-defendant are tried jointly for murder, and the co-defendant and his attorney offer to reveal the murder weapon's location for leniency, but the victim's father kills the co-defendant, can the prosecution compel the co-defendant's attorney to disclose what the co-defendant revealed?

Answer: No. The prosecution cannot compel the co-defendant's attorney to disclose what the co-defendant revealed because the communications come under the attorney-client privilege, which was not waived by the co-defendant because he never disclosed the confidential communications to the prosecution.


Question: What happens if a defendant voluntarily and selectively discloses privileged information to a prosecutor without taking steps to protect the privileged nature of such information?

Answer: If a defendant voluntarily and selectively discloses privileged information to a prosecutor without taking steps to protect the privileged nature of such information, the attorney-client privilege has been waived as to the disclosed information and all information on the same subject.


Question: Does the attorney-client privilege apply to fee arrangements/payments?

Answer: No. The attorney-client privilege generally does not apply to fee arrangements/payments as they are outside the scope of protection of the attorney-client privilege.


Question: In a trial for tax evasion, is the amount the defendant paid in legal fees to his attorney admissible?

Answer: Yes, in a trial for tax evasion, the amount the defendant paid in legal fees to his attorney is admissible as relevant information because such records of fee arrangements and payments are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.


Question: Is a defendant's letter to his attorney that contains statements in furtherance of a crime or fraud protected by the attorney-client privilege?

Answer: No. A defendant's letter to his attorney that contains statements that were in furtherance of a crime or fraud is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.


Question: Is an accident report prepared for an attorney a privileged communication from client to attorney?

Answer: Yes. An accident report prepared for an attorney is a privileged communication from client to attorney and its production cannot be demanded.


Question: In a lawsuit between two parties that initially jointly consulted with an attorney, is testimony about admissions made in that attorney-client conference admissible?

Answer: Yes, in a lawsuit between two parties that initially jointly consulted with an attorney, testimony about admissions made in that attorney-client conference is admissible despite the attorney-client privilege.


Question: In a lawsuit against an attorney for double-billing, does the attorney-client privilege protect information regarding hours billed by the attorney to other clients?

Answer: No, in a lawsuit against an attorney for double-billing, the attorney-client privilege does not protect information regarding hours billed by the attorney to other clients.


Question: Is testimony about admissions made in an attorney-client conference admissible?

Answer: No, testimony about admissions made in an attorney-client conference is inadmissible because of the attorney-client privilege.


Question: Are statements made to a person hired by an attorney privileged?

Answer: Yes. If an attorney hires someone, statements made to that person by the defendant are privileged.


Question: Is there a privilege if a client tells his attorney about a future crime or fraud?

Answer: No. There is no privilege if a client tells his attorney of a future crime or fraud, even if the attorney did not know that the client was telling him about a future crime or fraud.


Question: When an attorney acts for joint clients, can the privilege be invoked in a suit between the two parties?

Answer: No, when an attorney acts for joint clients, no privilege can be invoked in a suit between the two parties.


Question: In a jurisdiction with a doctor-patient privilege, can a doctor's attorney assert the privilege on behalf of the doctor?

Answer: Yes, in a jurisdiction with a doctor-patient privilege, the assertion of a privilege by the doctor's attorney, present at the trial as a spectator and allowed by the trial judge to speak, is a method to exclude evidence of statements to a doctor.


Question: If the patient's attorney is present in court, who should assert the doctor-patient privilege?

Answer: If the patient's attorney is sitting in court, the assertion of the doctor-patient privilege by the patient's attorney is the best way to exclude a privileged statement made by the patient.


Question: Who is the holder of the doctor-patient privilege?

Answer: The holder of the doctor-patient privilege is the patient, but the doctor is under a duty to assert the privilege on behalf of the patient if the patient or his duly authorized representative is not present to assert it.


Question: Does the physician-patient privilege apply to non-medical matters?

Answer: No. The physician-patient privilege does not apply to non-medical matters.


Question: Is a mental patient's statement to his nurse that he is going to kill someone privileged?

Answer: No. A mental patient telling his nurse that he is going to kill someone is not privileged.


Question: Can a witness in a civil action for negligence refuse to answer a question about personal use of drugs if it could subject the witness to criminal liability?

Answer: Yes, under cross-examination in a civil action for negligence, a witness may properly refuse to answer a question about his personal use of drugs if doing so could subject the witness to criminal liability.


Question: In what types of proceedings can a person invoke the privilege against self-incrimination?

Answer: A person may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in any civil or criminal proceeding, whether formal or informal. The privilege is available only where the possible consequence of the incriminating statement is criminal prosecution; it may not be invoked to shield against personal disgrace, loss of employment, or civil confinement.


Question: When can a witness invoke the privilege against self-incrimination?

Answer: A witness can invoke the privilege against self-incrimination only if the judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that the witness will incriminate himself.


Question: If a witness refuses to answer at cross-examination on the ground of self-incrimination, what can the judge do?

Answer: If a witness refuses to answer at cross-examination on the ground of self-incrimination, the judge may order the witness to testify or have the direct testimony stricken because the invocation of the privilege prevents adequate cross-examination.


Question: Can a dead person invoke a privilege?

Answer: No. A dead person cannot invoke a privilege.


Question: Can privileged information be disclosed in a Grand Jury Hearing without a waiver of the privilege?

Answer: No. Privileged information cannot be disclosed in a Grand Jury Hearing absent a waiver of the privilege because it is protected under the rules of privilege.


Question: Can a witness invoke the Fifth Amendment and remain silent if the judge believes there is some reasonable possibility that the witness will incriminate herself?

Answer: Yes. A witness can invoke the Fifth Amendment and remain silent if the judge believes there is some reasonable possibility that the witness will incriminate herself because the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination.


Question: Is a statement made to a priest at a social event privileged?

Answer: No. A statement made to a priest at a social event is not privileged because the statement is not within the scope of the privilege.


Question: An insurance investigator testifies in an automobile accident case on behalf of the defendant. Can the plaintiff cross-examine and impeach the investigator by showing that he is employed by the defendant-driver's insurer?

Answer: Yes. The plaintiff may cross-examine and impeach the investigator by showing that he is employed by the defendant-driver's insurer because this evidence is admissible to show bias.


Question: Can evidence of liability insurance be admissible for purposes other than proving negligence, such as impeachment for bias?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of liability insurance is admissible for purposes other than proving negligence, such as impeachment for bias, because it can be relevant for showing bias or prejudice.


Question: Can evidence of liability insurance be used substantively to prove negligence or other wrongful conduct under the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Answer: No. Evidence of liability insurance cannot be used substantively to prove negligence or other wrongful conduct under the Federal Rules of Evidence because it is inadmissible for these purposes.


Question: Is evidence of an insurance policy admissible to prove the defendant owned or had responsibility for the insured property?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of an insurance policy is admissible to prove the defendant owned or had responsibility for the insured property because it is relevant to ownership or control.


Question: When are subsequent remedial measures inadmissible to prove negligence or fault?

Answer: Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence or fault because their admission would discourage taking such measures to prevent future harm.


Question: Can evidence of subsequent remedial measures be admissible for purposes other than proving negligence, such as impeachment or proving ownership?

Answer: Yes. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures can be admissible for purposes other than proving negligence, such as impeachment or proving ownership, because it can be relevant for these other purposes.


Question: Can subsequent remedial measures be admissible to establish that a defendant owned or controlled a property involved in an accident?

Answer: Yes. Subsequent remedial measures are admissible to establish that a defendant owned or controlled a property involved in an accident because it is relevant to the issue of control.


Question: Are subsequent remedial measures admissible to rebut a defendant's claim that he did not own or control property involved in an accident where he subsequently repaired the property?

Answer: Yes. Subsequent remedial measures are admissible to rebut a defendant's claim that he did not own or control property involved in an accident where he subsequently repaired the property because it directly challenges the defendant's claim.


Question: A defendant is sued by the plaintiff in civil court for the tort of battery. During settlement negotiations, the defendant tells the plaintiff he is sorry for hitting him and that he is working on his rage issues. Can the prosecutor introduce the defendant's statement in a subsequent criminal prosecution for assault?

Answer: No. The prosecutor may not introduce the defendant's statement in a subsequent criminal prosecution for assault because statements made during compromise negotiations are generally inadmissible in subsequent criminal cases.


Question: A defendant is sued by the plaintiff in civil court for the tort of battery. During settlement negotiations, the defendant tells the plaintiff he is sorry for hitting him and that he is working on his rage issues. The defendant settles the civil suit and is then charged with criminal assault. Can the prosecutor introduce the defendant's statement in the subsequent criminal prosecution?

Answer: No. The prosecutor may not introduce the defendant's statement in the subsequent criminal prosecution because statements made during compromise negotiations over a disputed claim in a civil case are generally not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution.


Question: A defendant makes a statement admitting fault to a public officer conducting a regulatory investigation. Is the statement admissible in a criminal case?

Answer: Yes. The statement is admissible in a criminal case because admissions of fault made to a public officer during a regulatory investigation are not protected under the rules of compromise negotiations.


Question: Are offers of compromise and statements of fault made during compromise negotiations over a disputed claim in a civil case admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution?

Answer: No. Offers of compromise and statements of fault made during compromise negotiations over a disputed claim in a civil case are generally not admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution because their admission would discourage settlements.


Question: Is a defendant's statement admitting fault to a public officer conducting a regulatory investigation admissible in a criminal case?

Answer: Yes. A defendant's statement admitting fault to a public officer conducting a regulatory investigation is admissible in a criminal case because it is an exception to the general rule excluding such statements.


Question: A defendant says to the plaintiff 'I'm sorry my dog bit you, please allow me to pay for your hospital bills.' Is the defendant's offer to pay the hospital bill protected?

Answer: Yes. The defendant's offer to pay the hospital bill is protected, but any admissions of fault made during the offer are not protected.


Question: A defendant says to the plaintiff "I'm sorry my dog bit you, please allow me to pay for your hospital bills." Is the defendant's offer to pay the hospital bill protected?

Answer: Yes. The defendant's offer to pay the hospital bill is protected because an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible for proving culpable conduct.


Question: Does the protection of an offer to pay medical expenses apply to admissions made by a party in the course of the offer?

Answer: No. The protection of an offer to pay medical expenses does not apply to admissions made by a party in the course of the offer because only the actual offer or payment is protected.


Question: Is an offer to pay medical expenses inadmissible for proving culpable conduct?

Answer: Yes. An offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible for proving culpable conduct because the law aims to encourage offers to assist injured parties without fear of legal consequences.


Question: Are statements or admissions made in compromise negotiations inadmissible to prove liability if a claim is disputed as to validity or amount?

Answer: Yes. Statements or admissions made in compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability if a claim is disputed as to validity or amount because their exclusion encourages settlement negotiations.


Question: Can statements made in compromise negotiations be used to show bias, prejudice, negative undue delay, or obstruction?

Answer: Yes. Statements made in compromise negotiations can be used to show bias, prejudice, negative undue delay, or obstruction because these purposes are exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility.


Question: Is any evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury admissible?

Answer: No. Any evidence of furnishing, offering, or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible because the law seeks to encourage such offers without legal repercussions.


Question: Are offers of compromise inadmissible to encourage settlement negotiations?

Answer: Yes. Offers of compromise are inadmissible because the policy of the law is to encourage settlement negotiations.


Question: Are offers of compromise to settle a claim inadmissible even if the party acknowledges negligence?

Answer: Yes. Offers of compromise to settle a claim are inadmissible even if the party acknowledges negligence because the policy of the law is to encourage settlement negotiations.


Question: Are admissions in conjunction with an offer to pay medical bills admissible?

Answer: Yes. Admissions in conjunction with an offer to pay medical bills are admissible because the protection only applies to the offer or payment itself, not to accompanying admissions.


Question: If a defendant makes an offer of compromise, are all of the defendant's statements inadmissible?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant makes an offer of compromise, all of the defendant's statements are inadmissible because the law aims to promote settlement negotiations by excluding such statements.


Question: If a defendant offers to pay medical expenses, is only the statement about medical expenses excluded?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant offers to pay medical expenses, only the statement about medical expenses is excluded because the protection is limited to the offer or payment itself.


Question: Is an offer to pay medical expenses made immediately after an accident inadmissible as an offer to pay medical expenses?

Answer: Yes. An offer to pay medical expenses made immediately after an accident is inadmissible as an offer to pay medical expenses because the law seeks to encourage such offers without fear of legal consequences.


Question: What is required for offers to compromise to be inadmissible?

Answer: Offers to compromise are only inadmissible if the claim is in dispute because this rule encourages settlement negotiations by protecting statements made during disputes.


Question: What does the best evidence rule require when the terms of a writing are in issue?

Answer: The best evidence rule requires the original writing itself to be offered into evidence. If the original is unavailable for reasons other than the misconduct of the proponent, then copies or oral testimony are admissible.


Question: A government agent overhears a conversation between a defendant and his conspirators about a planned robbery. Can the agent's in-court testimony relating the conversation be admissible?

Answer: Yes. The agent's in-court testimony relating the conversation is admissible because it is based on personal knowledge and not dependent on an audiotape of the conversation.


Question: When does the best evidence rule apply?

Answer: The best evidence rule applies only if the testimony is derived from the writing itself, not from personal knowledge. If the fact to be proved has an existence independent of any writing or recording, there is no need to produce the original.


Question: Can a plaintiff testify as to the condition of an item if the item is lost and cannot be introduced into evidence?

Answer: Yes. The plaintiff can testify as to the condition of the item if the plaintiff has personal knowledge of it, despite the item's unavailability.


Question: When should testimony about the contents of a letter be admitted in evidence?

Answer: Testimony about the contents of a letter should be admitted in evidence only if the judge finds that the original letter is unavailable.


Question: Is a witness's testimony about writing a letter admissible without the letter itself?

Answer: Yes. A witness's testimony about writing a letter is admissible without the letter itself because the testimony is not about the contents of the letter.


Question: Is a video of a defamatory statement considered the best evidence under the best evidence rule?

Answer: Yes. A video of the defamatory statement is considered the best evidence as compared to testimony of the statement under the best evidence rule.


Question: What must be produced to prove the terms of a writing where the terms are material?

Answer: The original must be produced unless it is unavailable for some reason other than the fault of the proponent under the best evidence rule.


Question: Is a copy admissible if there is a question about the authenticity of an original document?

Answer: No. A copy is not admissible if there is a question about the authenticity of an original document.


Question: What should the court do if there is an original document and a copy that is different?

Answer: The court should admit both documents and let the jury decide which one is authentic.


Question: What does the best evidence rule require for proving the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph?

Answer: The best evidence rule requires the party to produce the original (or a duplicate) or account for its nonproduction.


Question: Can a witness refer to collateral documents without providing the documents themselves?

Answer: Yes. A witness may refer to collateral documents without providing the documents themselves.


Question: When are summaries of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs admissible?

Answer: Summaries are admissible if the original and summary are separately authenticated by giving notice to the parties and making the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying by other parties at a reasonable time and place.


Question: Can voluminous material be presented in the form of a chart?

Answer: Yes. Voluminous material may be presented in the form of a chart as long as the original documents are available to the other party for examination and copying.


Question: O owns land and B lends O money with the understanding the land is the collateral for the debt. Instead of executing a note or mortgage, O gives B a deed that is absolute on its face with the expectation that B will deed the land back to O after the loan from B is repaid. How will the court treat this deed?

Answer: The court will treat this deed as an equitable mortgage because the substance of the transaction indicates it was intended for security rather than an outright transfer.


Question: A purchase-money mortgage that is recorded is given priority over non-PMMs, even if the non-PMM was recorded first. Does an unrecorded PMM have priority over mortgages, liens, and other claims against the mortgagor that arise prior to the mortgagor's acquisition of title?

Answer: Yes. An unrecorded PMM has priority over mortgages, liens, and other claims against the mortgagor that arise prior to the mortgagor's acquisition of title because PMMs are prioritized in property transactions.


Question: What is the priority of a recorded purchase-money mortgage (PMM) over non-PMMs?

Answer: A recorded PMM has priority over non-PMMs, even if the non-PMM was recorded first.


Question: A buyer purchasing a home borrows 70% of the purchase price from a bank and gives the bank a purchase-money mortgage which is promptly recorded. The buyer also borrows 30% from the seller and gives the seller a purchase-money mortgage which is not recorded. Which PMM has priority if the buyer defaults?

Answer: The bank's PMM will have priority over the seller's PMM because the seller's PMM is unrecorded, and recording statutes protect subsequent bona fide purchasers for value who record first.


Question: What happens if a buyer purchasing a home borrows 70% of the purchase price from a bank and gives the bank a purchase-money mortgage which is promptly recorded, and also borrows 30% from the seller and gives the seller a purchase-money mortgage which is not recorded?

Answer: The bank's PMM will have priority over the seller's PMM because the seller's PMM is unrecorded.


Question: What is a mortgage?

Answer: A mortgage is the conveyance of an estate or pledge of property as security for the payment of money or the performance of some other act, conditioned to become void upon such payment or performance.


Question: How is judicial reluctance shown in relation to an affirmative burden to pay money over an indefinite period?

Answer: There is judicial reluctance to recognize an affirmative burden to pay money in installments over an indefinite period as a burden which can be affixed to bind future owners of land.


Question: How will the court treat an absolute deed given for security purposes?

Answer: The court will treat an absolute deed given for security purposes as an equitable mortgage, requiring foreclosure before the property can be sold.


Question: How does equity treat an absolute deed intended for security?

Answer: In equity, an absolute deed intended for security will be construed as a mortgage.


Question: Can a mortgagor's property be enforceable without the mortgagor being personally liable on the underlying obligation?

Answer: Yes. A mortgagor need not be personally liable on the underlying obligation for a mortgage on her property to be enforceable.


Question: Is each co-owner of a property encumbered by a mortgage liable for the entire mortgage?

Answer: Yes. Each co-owner of a property encumbered by a mortgage is liable for 100% of the mortgage.


Question: What happens under the title theory of mortgages if one joint co-owner takes out a mortgage on jointly owned property?

Answer: Under the title theory of mortgages, the taking of a mortgage terminates the joint tenancy as to that co-owner.


Question: How may a note be transferred?

Answer: A note may be transferred either by endorsing it and delivering it to the transferee, or by a separate document of assignment. The mortgage will automatically follow a properly transferred note.


Question: What happens when a person takes property and assumes a mortgage?

Answer: When a person takes property and assumes a mortgage, he or she becomes personally liable on the debt, and the original debtor remains personally liable unless released by a novation or release from the mortgagee.


Question: S sells land to B that is subject to a recorded mortgage, but the deed from S to B is silent as to whether B is assuming the mortgage. If B fails to make the payments, can the mortgagee obtain a deficiency judgment against B?

Answer: No. The mortgagee cannot obtain a deficiency judgment against B because a buyer's express assumption of the mortgage is required to make him personally liable on the mortgage.


Question: What is required for a purchaser who takes subject to a mortgage to avoid personal liability for the mortgage debt?

Answer: The purchaser must not expressly assume the mortgage to avoid personal liability for the mortgage debt. The mortgagee can foreclose but only seek deficiency from the seller after foreclosure.


Question: What happens if a buyer-grantee properly accepts a valid deed that contains a mortgage provision?

Answer: The buyer-grantee accepts all the conditions and terms within the deed, and the mortgagee can seek a deficiency judgment from the grantee who becomes primarily liable on the mortgage.


Question: What is the liability of a buyer who assumes an existing mortgage?

Answer: A buyer who assumes an existing mortgage is primarily liable for the mortgage debt and any foreclosure deficiency.


Question: What happens if a mortgagor conveys land without the prior consent of the bank under a valid due-on-sale clause?

Answer: The bank may lawfully accelerate the debt if the mortgagor conveys the land without prior consent under a valid due-on-sale clause.


Question: What happens if a grantee takes subject to a mortgage but does not expressly assume the mortgage?

Answer: The grantee is not personally liable for the loan, but the mortgagee can foreclose on the property if the mortgage is not paid.


Question: What are the liabilities of a mortgagee who takes possession of the premises after the mortgagor defaults?

Answer: The mortgagee is subject to the same liabilities in tort as the property owner.


Question: What happens if a grantee purchases property subject to a mortgage without assuming it?

Answer: The grantee is not personally liable on the mortgage, and only the mortgagor remains personally liable.


Question: What is the liability of the original mortgagor if a grantee signs an assumption agreement?

Answer: The original mortgagor is secondarily liable as a surety, while the grantee becomes primarily liable to the lender.


Question: What are the liabilities of a transferee who assumes the mortgage?

Answer: The transferee is primarily liable, and the mortgagor is secondarily liable, meaning both are personally liable.


Question: What is the liability of a transferee who takes subject to the mortgage?

Answer: The transferee has no personal liability, and the mortgagor remains personally liable.


Question: What is the liability of a person who takes property by quitclaim deed with no mention of a mortgage?

Answer: The person takes the property subject to the mortgage, and the mortgagee cannot institute an in personam action against the person for default.


Question: What is an alternative to foreclosure if a mortgage is in default?

Answer: The mortgagor and mortgagee can agree that the mortgagor will voluntarily convey the property to the lender in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt, but a deed in lieu of foreclosure may be set aside later by a court if not fair and equitable in all respects.


Question: What happens if a mortgagee agrees to accept the mortgagor's fee title instead of foreclosing?

Answer: The mortgagee takes the title subject to any junior liens the mortgagee placed on the property, which can only be extinguished through foreclosure.


Question: What is the implication of a prohibition of prepayment in a mortgage?

Answer: A prohibition of prepayment is implied, and the mortgagor has no right to prepayment unless the mortgage provides otherwise. A prepayment penalty or prohibition is valid and regarded as an agreed-upon alternative form of performance.


Question: What can a mortgagee do if a mortgage is in default?

Answer: The mortgagor and mortgagee can agree that the mortgagor will give the mortgagee fee simple title to the property in satisfaction of the mortgage debt, but a deed in lieu of foreclosure may be set aside later by a court if not fair and equitable in all respects.


Question: What claims does a mortgagee have?

Answer: A mortgagee has both an in personam claim against the mortgagor on the debt and an in rem action against the security.


Question: O specifically devises his house to A in his will, but the house is lost in foreclosure before O dies and sold at auction. Who gets the proceeds from the foreclosure sale if O dies before the surplus proceeds are distributed?

Answer: The proceeds from the foreclosure sale go to O's heirs instead of A because under the doctrine of ademption, the specific legacy fails if the subject is not in existence at the testator's death.


Question: What happens under the doctrine of ademption if a testator's specific bequest is not in existence at the testator's death?

Answer: The gift fails because it is deemed revoked, and the devisee or legatee takes nothing.


Question: What does an acceleration clause in a mortgage allow?

Answer: An acceleration clause allows the entire amount of the principal to become due and payable in the event of the mortgagor's default.


Question: A defendant tears down one of the barns on a farm secured by a mortgage. Is this a default that can result in acceleration of the mortgage?

Answer: Yes. This is a default that can result in acceleration of the mortgage because tearing down a barn is considered waste, which can trigger the acceleration clause.


Question: When can an acceleration clause be triggered in a mortgage?

Answer: An acceleration clause can be triggered by defaults in compliance with other covenants in the mortgage, such as failure to pay taxes, maintain insurance, commit waste, or violation of a due-on-sale clause.


Question: What happens if there is a valid assumption of a mortgage debt?

Answer: The grantee becomes the principal debtor, and the grantor-mortgagor becomes a surety, secondarily liable for any deficiency not paid by the grantee.


Question: What effect does a modification of the original debt have on the priority of junior lienholders?

Answer: A modification that has a material adverse effect upon a junior lienholder may cause a loss in priority of a portion or all of the security unless the junior lienholders have consented. If there is no material prejudice, the priority does not change.


Question: What is the priority of the first mortgage over later mortgages?

Answer: The first mortgage has priority over later mortgages if the first mortgage is recorded and the second mortgagee has notice of it. In the event of foreclosure, proceeds are paid to the first mortgagee first.


Question: What is the two funds rule of marshaling in regards to mortgages?

Answer: The two funds rule of marshaling requires a senior creditor with two or more funds to satisfy its debt to first dispose of the fund not available to a junior creditor. This rule is inapplicable if there is only one parcel of land with multiple mortgages.


Question: A grantor conveys commercial land to a friend 'so long as marijuana is not sold on the property.' What happens if marijuana is sold on the property?

Answer: If marijuana is sold on the property, the grantor retains a possibility of reverter and would become the owner of the property by operation of law because the estate is to end at once upon the stated event happening.


Question: What is a fee simple determinable?

Answer: A fee simple determinable terminates upon the happening of a stated event and automatically reverts to the grantor. It is characterized by words of duration such as 'so long as,' 'while,' 'until,' or 'during.'


Question: O executes and delivers a deed to A containing the language: 'To my daughter A when she marries B.' What type of interest does A have?

Answer: A has a springing executory interest because the property will spring out from the transferor O to the transferee A if the event happens.


Question: What is a springing executory interest?

Answer: A springing executory interest is an executory interest that follows an interest that the grantor held. The grantor is not divested at the time of the instrument but at some later time if a specified event happens.


Question: What are the characteristics of an indefeasibly vested remainder?

Answer: The holder of an indefeasibly vested remainder is certain to acquire a possessory estate in the future without any conditions attached. All vested remainders are transferable (alienable), descendible, and devisable.


Question: When is a remainder vested?

Answer: A remainder is vested if: (1) the remainder is given to a presently existing and ascertained person, and (2) it is not subject to a condition precedent.


Question: A deed reads, 'To A and his heirs until A's daughter marries, and then to A's daughter and her heirs in fee simple.' What type of interests do A and A's daughter have?

Answer: A has a defeasible fee simple determinable, and A's daughter has an executory interest.


Question: If a fee simple is conveyed with a limitation that if a stated event occurs, title is automatically divested by an executory interest in a transferee, what type of estate is this?

Answer: This estate is a defeasible fee simple determinable subject to an executory interest.


Question: If a remainderman pays property taxes during the life tenancy, can he seek reimbursement from the life tenant?

Answer: Yes. The remainderman can seek reimbursement from the life tenant since the life tenant has a duty to pay such taxes to the extent of the income that can be earned on the land.


Question: What duties does a life tenant have in the absence of a contrary direction in the document creating the life estate?

Answer: A life tenant must pay all routine maintenance costs, mortgage interest, and general property taxes that accrue during the continuance of the life estate. The life tenant has no duty to expend more than the income generated from the land.


Question: A life tenant replaces a ceiling light with an antique chandelier and tells the remainderman it should be removed after her death. Can her personal representative remove the chandelier after her death?

Answer: Yes. Her personal representative may remove the chandelier after her death and give it to the nephew because the life tenant has the right to remove annexed chattels within a reasonable time after the life tenancy has expired.


Question: Can life tenants remove annexed chattels after the life tenancy has expired?

Answer: Yes. Life tenants have the right to remove annexed chattels within a reasonable time after the life tenancy has expired, provided the removal can be effected without causing substantial injury to the realty or substantial destruction of the fixture itself.


Question: O conveys to A 'so long as the land is used for a church' and then O dies intestate. Thirty years later, A demolishes the church. Is the heir entitled to possession?

Answer: Yes. The heir is now entitled to possession because the conveyance was a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter, which is not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities.


Question: What are the characteristics of a vested remainder?

Answer: A vested remainder is descendible, devisable, and alienable, meaning it can be conveyed to another party and the grantee will have the same rights as the grantor.


Question: To what extent is a life tenant obligated to pay property taxes assessed against the property?

Answer: A life tenant is obligated to pay the property taxes assessed against the property only to the extent the life tenant receives income from the property.


Question: A devise reads 'to B, for life, with remainder to my descendants per stirpes.' When is the remainder contingent?

Answer: The remainder is contingent if a court implies a condition that the remaindermen survive B.


Question: A conveyance reads 'to B and his heirs.' What interest does B have under this conveyance?

Answer: B has a fee simple interest, and the heirs have no interest under this conveyance.


Question: A conveys to B for life, with remainder to C's children who are not yet born. What type of interest do C's unborn children have?

Answer: C's unborn children have a contingent remainder.


Question: A deed conveys a life estate to be used for a specific purpose. If it is no longer used for that purpose, what can be done?

Answer: You can enjoin the holder of the life estate, and damages can be recovered but impounded for future distribution.


Question: How are conveyances interpreted to prevent restraints on alienation?

Answer: To prevent restraints on alienation, if there is a question as to the interpretation of a conveyance, it will be interpreted as a fee simple absolute and restrictions in the conveyance will be regarded as contractual.


Question: Is a valid remainder after a life estate still valid if provisions on the remainder interest are declared void as restraints on alienation?

Answer: Yes. A valid remainder after a life estate is still valid even if provisions on the remainder interest are declared void as restraints on alienation.


Question: What happens when a grantor conveys a fee simple determinable followed by a void executory interest?

Answer: The grantor retains a possibility of reverter.


Question: What is the holder of a life estate obligated to pay for a mortgage on the property?

Answer: The holder of a life estate is obligated to pay the interest portion of a mortgage on the property.


Question: What is the holder of a life estate responsible for with regard to property taxes?

Answer: The life tenant is responsible for property taxes only to the extent that he or she receives income from the property.


Question: Who is responsible for paying the principal portion of a mortgage on a property with a life estate and a remainder interest?

Answer: The remainderman must pay the principal portion of the mortgage.


Question: What type of remainder is created if a remainder is created in a class that could grow?

Answer: The remainder is vested subject to partial defeasance (i.e., subject to open).


Question: Is a conveyance of a future interest by quitclaim deed valid if a statute provides that any interest in land is freely alienable?

Answer: Yes. A conveyance of a future interest by quitclaim deed is valid, and title will vest in the grantee when the occurrence happens.


Question: When is an interest created in a third person to follow a fee simple determinable void?

Answer: An interest created in a third person to follow a fee simple determinable is void if it is not sure to vest within lives in being (people identified in the granting instrument).


Question: A conveyance reads 'to B, his heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential purposes, then to C and his heirs and assigns.' What type of interest is created?

Answer: This creates a possibility of reverter.


Question: Does the owner of a defeasible fee simple have the right to take minerals from the land without notice to any executory interests?

Answer: Yes. The owner of a defeasible fee simple has the right to take minerals from the land without notice to any executory interests.


Question: If a life tenant wants to demolish a building on the property to build a shopping mall, what does this constitute?

Answer: This constitutes waste.


Question: A conveyance reads 'to A for the purpose of constructing a day care center.' What type of estate is created?

Answer: A fee simple absolute is created because there is no durational language.


Question: Can a tenant in common seek contribution from other co-tenants for repairs, taxes, and mortgage payments?

Answer: Yes. A tenant in common may seek contribution from the other co-tenants for all repairs, taxes, and mortgage payments made on the property that exceeds the percentage interest of the paying tenant in common.


Question: Is a tenant in common entitled to be reimbursed for improvements made to the property without an agreement by the other co-tenants or a court order?

Answer: No. A tenant in common is not entitled to be reimbursed for improvements made to the property absent an agreement by the other co-tenants or pursuant to a court order.


Question: What happens if a person mortgages his interest in a property but dies before the loan is fully repaid?

Answer: The property will go to his heirs/devisees as cotenants. The property remains subject to the mortgage, and all co-tenants are obligated to pay their share of the mortgage, taxes, etc. Co-tenants who obtain their interest in the same document are fiduciaries of one another. If a co-tenant later acquires superior title to the property, such as by a subsequent tax or mortgage foreclosure sale, the co-tenant must give the other co-tenants a reasonable opportunity to acquire their proportional share.


Question: Can a co-tenant lease his portion of the property interest without the consent of the other co-tenants?

Answer: Yes. One of the co-tenants in a tenancy in common can lease his portion of the property interest without the consent of the other co-tenants.


Question: Can a joint tenant's interest be devised by will?

Answer: No. A joint tenant's interest cannot be devised by will because when one joint tenant dies, the survivor becomes the sole owner of the property.


Question: What happens if a joint tenant's creditor fails to execute on the judgment against the joint tenant before the joint tenant's death?

Answer: The surviving joint tenant receives the real property in fee simple free and clear of any liens against the joint tenant's interest.


Question: Does a co-tenant in a tenancy in common have the right to lease out his portion of the tenancy without the approval of the other co-tenants?

Answer: Yes. A co-tenant in a tenancy in common has the right to lease out his portion of the tenancy without the approval of the other co-tenants, but he must share the rent proceeds with the other co-tenants, and the renter must share possession of the premises with the other co-tenants.


Question: Is physical partition available in a partition action if a zoning ordinance makes it impossible to divide the land fairly?

Answer: No. The option of physical partition is not available if a zoning ordinance makes it impossible to divide the land fairly.


Question: What happens to a joint tenant's interest at the joint tenant's death?

Answer: The joint tenant's interest goes to the other joint tenants, regardless of what the dead joint tenant's will states.


Question: What rights does a cotenant of real property have?

Answer: A cotenant of real property has a right to a partition and an accounting. Adverse possession will not apply to co-tenancies unless one cotenant was ousted.


Question: Can a tenancy of the entirety be severed by unilateral conveyance?

Answer: No. A tenancy of the entirety may not be severed by unilateral conveyance. The tenants must mutually agree to convey to another person or one must convey to the other.


Question: What happens to a lien on a joint tenant's share if the joint tenant dies?

Answer: The lien is extinguished, and the surviving joint tenant owns the whole property.


Question: What happens if one joint tenant quitclaims his interest?

Answer: The joint tenancy is severed.


Question: What happens when one joint tenant dies?

Answer: The surviving joint tenant becomes the sole owner of the interest that the two of them had previously held jointly and can convey the property without joinder of any other person in the conveyance.


Question: In a joint tenancy, what portion of the property is subject to a mortgage if one tenant takes out a mortgage?

Answer: Only the mortgagor's interest (i.e., a 1/2 interest) is subject to the mortgage.


Question: Who could hold a tenancy of the entirety at common law?

Answer: At common law, only validly married couples could hold a tenancy of the entirety.


Question: What happens if a person tries to buy property as tenants in common and forges the other person's name on the conveyance?

Answer: The share will be vested in the grantor, not the other tenant in common, because forgery does not transfer title.


Question: What does the doctrine of retaliatory eviction protect tenants from?

Answer: The doctrine of retaliatory eviction protects tenants from being evicted simply because they assert their legal rights protected by the implied warranty of habitability. If a tenant makes a good-faith complaint regarding the habitability of the premises, many states presume a retaliatory motive if the landlord attempts to evict or penalize the tenant within a defined period of time after the tenant exercises these rights. These protections cannot be contracted away in the lease, and the burden of proof is on the landlord to show that the eviction was not retaliatory.


Question: What happens if a landlord elects to holdover a tenant who has wrongfully stayed on past the conclusion of the original lease?

Answer: The tenant becomes a periodic tenant with the period measured by the way the rent is tendered. If the landlord later elects to terminate this holdover periodic tenancy, the landlord must give the tenant notice at least equal to the length of the period itself.


Question: Does a landlord have a cause of action against a sublessee under the common law?

Answer: No. Under the common law, a landlord has no cause of action against a sublessee because there is no privity of contract or privity of estate between them. The subtenant is only liable to the original tenant, and the landlord can sue only the original tenant.


Question: What is the American view of a tenant's right of possession regarding a landlord's duties?

Answer: Under the American view, a landlord has fulfilled his duties once he provides the tenant with legal possession of the leased premises. The landlord does not have to put the tenant in actual possession.


Question: If a written lease provides that the landlord is entitled to the entire condemnation award in the event of an eminent domain proceeding, is the tenant entitled to share in the award?

Answer: No. If a written lease provides that the landlord is entitled to the entire condemnation award in the event of an eminent domain proceeding, the tenant is not entitled to share in the award even if the tenant's possessory interest substantially exceeded the tenant's obligation under the lease.


Question: What happens if a tenant transfers all or some of the leased premises to another for the remainder of the lease term, retaining no interest in the assigned premises?

Answer: It is a proper assignment, although the tenant remains liable on the contract/lease.


Question: What happens if a lease prohibits assignment but the tenant transfers exclusive use of the leased property to another for the remainder of the lease term?

Answer: This is an assignment and a violation of the lease.


Question: Can a landlord enforce a claim for rent against a sublessee if the tenant sublets the premises?

Answer: No. If a tenant sublets the premises, the landlord can only enforce a claim for rent against the tenant because there is no privity of estate between a landlord and a sublessee.


Question: What is a Tenancy at Sufferance?

Answer: Under a Tenancy at Sufferance, if the tenant has wrongfully held over past the expiration of the lease, the tenant has a leasehold estate to permit the landlord to recover rent. The tenancy at sufferance lasts only until the landlord either evicts the tenant or elects to hold the tenant to a new lease term.


Question: How does the common law view lease provisions limiting assignment or subletting?

Answer: Under the common law, lease provisions limiting assignment or subletting are a restraint on the free alienation of land, are not favored by the law, and are to be strictly construed.


Question: Can a landlord terminate a periodic lease or deny a lease renewal because the tenant asserted his right to habitable premises?

Answer: No. Under the doctrine of retaliatory eviction, a landlord may not terminate a periodic lease or deny a lease renewal because the tenant asserted his right to habitable premises.


Question: Does a non-assignment clause in a lease give a co-tenant the right to sue if another co-tenant assigns his interest?

Answer: No. If there is a non-assignment clause in a lease, a co-tenant assigning his interest does not give the other co-tenants a right to sue.


Question: What can a landlord do if the occupier is a licensee rather than a tenant?

Answer: If a landlord can show that the occupier is a licensee rather than a tenant, the landlord can institute a cause of action to gain immediate possession of the premises without notice to the occupier.


Question: What happens to the landlord-tenant relationship if the entire premises are taken in condemnation?

Answer: Unless the entire premises are taken in condemnation and the tenant gets an appropriate portion of any condemnation award, the landlord-tenant relationship is unaffected by the condemnation, and the tenant is obligated to continue paying rent.


Question: Can a writing stating that you will accept rent from the assignee instead of the assignor be regarded as a novation?

Answer: Yes. A writing stating that you will accept rent from the assignee instead of the assignor may be regarded as a novation that releases the assignor from liability because it indicates the acceptance of the new tenant in place of the original one.


Question: A tenant needs an assistance animal to reduce diagnosed depression. Must the landlord permit the pet even if pets are not allowed in the building?

Answer: Yes. The landlord must permit the pet because it is a reasonable accommodation for the tenant's disability under the Fair Housing Act.


Question: Can a landlord refuse to sell or lease housing to a person who has a physical or mental disability under the Fair Housing Act?

Answer: No. A landlord cannot refuse to sell or lease housing to a person who has a physical or mental disability under the Fair Housing Act because it prohibits discrimination based on disability.


Question: Does the Fair Housing Act apply to owner-occupied buildings under 4-units?

Answer: No. The Fair Housing Act does not apply to owner-occupied buildings under 4-units because it exempts these smaller buildings from its requirements.


Question: Must landlords agree to reasonable accommodation requests if the disability claim is true and does not create a hardship on the landlord or other tenants under the Fair Housing Act?

Answer: Yes. Landlords must agree to reasonable accommodation requests if the disability claim is true and does not create a hardship on the landlord or other tenants because the Fair Housing Act requires such accommodations.


Question: What laws govern the transfer of real property or a contract for the sale of real property?

Answer: The laws of the state where the real property is located will govern because the law of situs controls issues of conveyance, title, and validity of subsequent transfers.


Question: A landlord states a racial or gender preference in an advertisement for a house he is renting. Is this allowed if his motives are innocent?

Answer: No. A landlord cannot state a racial or gender preference in an advertisement for a house he is renting because it violates the Fair Housing Act, regardless of the landlord's motives.


Question: Does the Fair Housing Act prohibit discriminatory advertising for the sale or rental of real property?

Answer: Yes. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discriminatory advertising for the sale or rental of real property because it strictly prohibits ads that state a preference, discrimination, or limitation based on protected classes.


Question: Does a right of first refusal to a 'grantee, his heirs and assigns' violate the Rule Against Perpetuities under common law?

Answer: Yes. A right of first refusal to a 'grantee, his heirs and assigns' violates the Rule Against Perpetuities under common law because it creates an interest that is void at the time of its creation.


Question: Is the trend of modern decisions to avoid applying the Rule Against Perpetuities to commercial transactions in land?

Answer: Yes. The trend of modern decisions is to avoid applying the Rule Against Perpetuities to commercial transactions in land by reading a reasonable time limit into the transaction or holding that the policies behind RAP would not be advanced by applying it.


Question: Can a court interpret a devise of 'my entire estate' to include the devisee's Power of Appointment?

Answer: Yes. A court may interpret a devise of 'my entire estate' to include the devisee's Power of Appointment because it can be construed as encompassing all the property interests of the testator.


Question: Does a conveyance with a restriction on the use of land that gives the grantor a power of termination violate the Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: Yes. A conveyance with a restriction on the use of land that gives the grantor a power of termination violates the Rule Against Perpetuities because it creates a future interest that may not vest within the required period.


Question: Are class gifts to a testator's children or grandchildren in a will valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: Yes. Class gifts to a testator's children or grandchildren in a will are valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities if all interests vest or fail within a life in being at the testator's death plus twenty-one years.


Question: Are class gifts to grandchildren that take effect when the grandchildren reach age 21 valid in inter vivos conveyances under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: No. Class gifts to grandchildren contingent upon reaching age 21 are generally invalid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities in inter vivos conveyances because the interest in the property may not vest within the permissible time frame. The Rule requires that any interest in property must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after the death of some life in being at the creation of the interest. Since a grandchild could be born after the settlor's death and not reach age 21 until many years later, the vesting of the interest is uncertain and could potentially extend indefinitely, violating the Rule.


Question: When must all interests created under a will vest or fail under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: All interests created under a will must vest or fail within a life in being plus twenty-one years under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities because the rule applies to ensure interests vest within a reasonable period.


Question: In a conveyance from A to 'B, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for residential purposes, then to C and his heirs,' is C's interest valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: No. C's interest is void under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities because it creates a future interest that may not vest within the required period.


Question: Can a deed restricting ownership or occupancy to persons at least 21 years old in a family-oriented community be considered a violation of the equal protection clause?

Answer: Yes. A deed restricting ownership or occupancy to persons at least 21 years old in a family-oriented community may be considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminates based on age.


Question: Does a first right of refusal fall within the Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: Yes. A first right of refusal falls within the Rule Against Perpetuities because it creates a future interest that must vest or fail within the period prescribed by the rule.


Question: Is a right of first refusal to repurchase property in a deed valid if the right to purchase will vest or fail within the period prescribed by the Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: Yes. A right of first refusal to repurchase property in a deed is valid if the right to purchase will vest or fail within the period prescribed by the Rule Against Perpetuities because it satisfies the rule's requirements.


Question: Is a conveyance of land by deed 'to G, but if H is living 40 years from now, then to H' valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities?

Answer: Yes. A conveyance of land by deed 'to G, but if H is living 40 years from now, then to H' is valid under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities because the interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being.


Question: Does a Fee Simple Determinable use language such as 'so long as' or 'until'?

Answer: Yes. A Fee Simple Determinable uses language such as 'so long as' or 'until' where the estate automatically reverts to the grantor upon the violation of the condition.


Question: Does the Rule Against Perpetuities apply to a Fee Simple Determinable?

Answer: No. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to a Fee Simple Determinable because there is no interest in a third person.


Question: Does a right of first refusal to buy land violate the Rule Against Perpetuities if it vests during a measuring life's lifetime?

Answer: No. A right of first refusal to buy land does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities if it vests during a measuring life's lifetime because it satisfies the rule's requirements.


Question: Does the Rule Against Perpetuities apply to options to purchase where the one who holds the option is the current lessee?

Answer: No. The Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply to options to purchase where the one who holds the option is the current lessee because the interest is considered vested.


Question: Is privity of estate needed to enforce an equitable servitude?

Answer: No. Privity of estate is not needed to enforce an equitable servitude because it is enforced as an equitable property interest in the land itself.


Question: O subdivides a vacant lot into 2 parcels and conveys one lot to A with a covenant in the deed specifying that only residential homes can be constructed. A later conveys to B without mentioning the covenant. Is B subject to the equitable servitude?

Answer: Yes. B is subject to the equitable servitude because he had constructive notice of it through the recorded deed.


Question: What are the requirements for an equitable servitude to run with the land?

Answer: An equitable servitude runs with the land and is enforceable against anyone who possesses the burdened parcel if: (1) the original parties intended it; (2) the servitude touches and concerns the land; and (3) the subsequent purchaser has actual or constructive notice of the covenant.


Question: What are the four elements required for an equitable servitude to bind a successor?

Answer: The four elements required for an equitable servitude to bind a successor are: (1) the servitude must be included in writing in the original conveyance; (2) the original parties must have intended for the servitude to run with the land; (3) the servitude must touch and concern the land; and (4) the new owner must have either actual, constructive, or inquiry notice of the servitude.


Question: What is the main difference between an equitable servitude and a real covenant?

Answer: The main difference between an equitable servitude and a real covenant is that the remedy for a breach of a real covenant is money damages, while the remedy for a breach of an equitable servitude is injunctive relief.


Question: Will a party usually want specific performance or some other type of injunctive relief when seeking enforcement of an equitable servitude?

Answer: Yes. A party will usually want specific performance or some other type of injunctive relief when seeking enforcement of an equitable servitude because the remedy for a breach is injunctive relief.


Question: Can a conveyance be enforceable against the grantee if the grantor only signs the writing?

Answer: Yes. A conveyance can be enforceable against the grantee if the grantor only signs the writing because it satisfies the statute of frauds.


Question: What is required for an equitable servitude to be valid?

Answer: An equitable servitude is valid if there is: (1) a writing satisfying the statute of frauds; (2) the original party intended to bind the grantee's heirs and assigns; (3) it touches and concerns the land; and (4) there is notice to subsequent grantees in the form of actual, inquiry, or record notice.


Question: If a landowner sells a portion of his property but places a valid restrictive covenant on the property being sold, can the landowner later enforce a violation of the covenant?

Answer: Yes. The landowner can later enforce a violation of the covenant because RAP does not apply to covenants.


Question: Can a restrictive covenant placed on property by the grantor after the grantor conveyed the property be binding?

Answer: No. A restrictive covenant placed on property by the grantor after the grantor conveyed the property is not binding because it was not part of the original conveyance.


Question: Can other grantees burdened by the same covenant bring suit to enforce the covenant?

Answer: Yes. Other grantees burdened by the same covenant can bring suit to enforce the covenant because they share the same property interest affected by the covenant.


Question: Does a covenant in a deed run with the land even if it is not mentioned in subsequent deeds?

Answer: Yes. A covenant in a deed runs with the land even if it is not mentioned in subsequent deeds because the covenant is attached to the property itself.


Question: Can an equitable servitude be enforced against any subsequent owner of the land even if it wasn't in the deed to the current owner?

Answer: Yes. An equitable servitude can be enforced against any subsequent owner of the land even if it wasn't in the deed to the current owner so long as it was in a deed in the chain of title.


Question: Can a negative equitable servitude be implied from a common scheme for the development of a residential subdivision?

Answer: Yes. A negative equitable servitude may be implied from a common scheme for the development of a residential subdivision so long as the landowners have notice of the agreement.


Question: Can a negative covenant be enforced if it is implied by a common scheme of development?

Answer: Yes. A negative covenant can be enforced if it is implied by a common scheme of development that was advertised as such or planned as such.


Question: Will a negative covenant be enforced if there is no evidence a common building or development scheme was established for the entire subdivision?

Answer: No. A negative covenant will not be enforced if there is no evidence a common building or development scheme was established for the entire subdivision.


Question: Will a negative covenant be enforced against a new part of a subdivision if there is evidence that a common building or development scheme was established for the entire subdivision?

Answer: Yes. A negative covenant will be enforced against a new part of a subdivision if there is evidence that a common building or development scheme was established for the entire subdivision because it indicates the intent to apply the covenant uniformly.


Question: Is a property owner obligated to adhere to a covenant if it does not change the value, use, or utility of the land?

Answer: No. A property owner is not obligated to adhere to a covenant if it does not change the value, use, or utility of the land because the covenant does not touch and concern the land.


Question: Can a covenant be created to require lot owners in a development to pay annual dues for the maintenance of the property?

Answer: Yes. A covenant can be created to require lot owners in a development to pay annual dues for the maintenance of the property.


Question: What is an example of an affirmative covenant?

Answer: An example of an affirmative covenant is a covenant that requires lot owners in a development to pay annual dues for the maintenance of the property.


Question: Can a covenant that requires the payment of money in installments over an indefinite period be enforced by the courts?

Answer: No. A covenant that requires the payment of money in installments over an indefinite period may not be enforced by the courts because of the burden imposed on the future owners of the land.


Question: Is a restrictive covenant in a prior deed that is not contained in a later deed still valid?

Answer: Yes. A restrictive covenant in a prior deed that is not contained in a later deed is still valid as it runs with the land and can be enforced against those who should be on inquiry notice.


Question: Can a restrictive covenant in a deed be enforced in a court of law?

Answer: Yes. A restrictive covenant in a deed runs with the land and can be enforced in a court of law.


Question: Are courts divided on whether an affirmative covenant to pay money touches and concerns the burdened property?

Answer: Yes. Courts are divided as to whether an affirmative covenant to pay money (other than rent) touches and concerns the burdened property.


Question: Can an equitable servitude be enforced by a successor to the original parties without consideration of privity?

Answer: Yes. An equitable servitude can be enforced by a successor to the original parties without consideration of privity, so long as the servitude: (1) touches and concerns the land; (2) was intended by the parties to bind the successors; and (3) the party burdened had notice of the servitude.


Question: What is an equitable servitude?

Answer: An equitable servitude is a restriction on the use of land enforceable in a court of equity. It is more than a covenant because it is an interest in the land itself.


Question: A and B own contiguous tracts of real property. A agrees to sell B an easement appurtenant through A's property for use as a single-lane road. Who acquires the easement?

Answer: B would acquire an easement by express grant, and the easement automatically passes to the next owner of the dominant estate.


Question: What is an easement appurtenant?

Answer: An easement appurtenant is an easement held by a person as the owner of land that benefits from the easement. It benefits another land and the owner of that land, not simply another person. It can only be granted to owners of neighboring or nearby property, and it runs with the land, binding and benefiting subsequent owners even if they were not the original contracting parties and have no direct privity of contract.


Question: A conveys an easement over his land to his neighbor B by deed of gift. The deed is silent as to the easement's location, but B uses a 10-foot strip along the north side of A's land for access. What happens to the easement's location?

Answer: B's use of the easement fixed the location of the easement, meaning any relocation of the easement requires A's permission.


Question: Can the owner of the servient estate locate the precise right-of-way when the exact location of an easement is not specified?

Answer: Yes. The owner of the servient estate has the right to locate the precise right-of-way in a reasonable manner when the exact location of an easement is not specified. Once the location of the right-of-way is established, it becomes fixed and cannot be moved without the consent of the owners of the servient and dominant estate.


Question: A owns a lot in fee simple and has a right of way easement across land B owns in fee simple. B later sells his land to A. What happens to the easement?

Answer: The easement is extinguished, so if A later sells the parcel over which he once enjoyed the right of way, the easement is not reinstated automatically, and A must start from scratch to re-create it.


Question: Under the merger doctrine, when is an easement extinguished?

Answer: An easement is extinguished under the merger doctrine when title to the easement and title to the servient land become vested in the same person, and the duration of the servient tenement is equal to or longer than the duration of the dominant tenement.


Question: For an easement by necessity, does it matter whether the grantor's retained parcel or the grantee's parcel is landlocked?

Answer: No. It does not matter as long as the easement by necessity meets the requirement of prior unity and necessity arising at severance.


Question: When can an easement by necessity be obtained over a land-locking parcel?

Answer: An easement by necessity may be obtained over a land-locking parcel when there was prior unity of the tracts, and the necessity arose at the time of the severance.


Question: A servient estate blocks an access easement with a fence. Is this allowed?

Answer: No. The servient estate cannot block an access easement with a fence.


Question: Can the owner of the servient estate impair, frustrate, or obstruct the right of the dominant estate to use the easement?

Answer: No. The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, frustrate, or obstruct the right of the dominant estate to use the easement.


Question: Does the mere non-use of an easement result in its destruction?

Answer: No. The mere non-use of an easement does not result in its destruction.