Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
A and B both live along River, with A living upstream from B. A began farming his property and
diverted approximately 20% of the water from River to irrigate his crops. B objected to A's use
of the water from River because B operates a mill on River and the volume of water flowing
through the mill has decreased due to A's irrigation. Under what doctrine(s) can B prevent A's
diversion of the River's water for irrigation use?
1. Under the natural flow doctrine, because irrigation is considered an "artificial use."
2. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, because B's mill was built before A began farming.
3. Under the reasonable use doctrine, because it is unreasonable to use 20% of a river's waters
for irrigation.
4. Both 1 and 2.
5. All of the above. - ✔✔✔-4. Both 1 and 2.
A and B hold record title to contiguous lots (Lots 1 and 2 respectively), but both live in a city
2,000 miles away. C, a con artist, delivered a deed to D purporting to convey both of the lots to
D. D moved into the house on Lot 1 and remained in residence there, openly. D told neighbors
that he owned Lots 1 and 2, paid taxes on both lots, and brought trespass suits against some
people who had been crossing the properties without authorization. After fifteen years, D brings
a quiet title action. Assuming a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years, what is the
likely result?
1. D owns both lots per color of title.
2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession.
3. In a jurisdiction requiring good faith, D would not acquire title because C did not own the
property he purported to convey.
4. Because A and B live far away and lack actual knowledge of D's occupancy, the statutory
period has not yet run against - ✔✔✔-2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession.
A and B owned adjacent lots. A paid B $1,000 to sign an agreement promising that B's lot will be
"restricted to residential uses." A recorded the agreement in the land records. Six months later,
,Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
B sold his lot to C, who proceeded to build a gas station on the property. Can A sue C for
damages from violating the residential use restriction?
1. Yes, because the real covenant runs with B's land because it was recorded and touches and
concerns the land.
2. Yes, because A and B were in instantaneous privity when the covenant was signed.
3. No, because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real
covenant that runs with B's land.
4. No, because a residential use restriction does not touch and concern the land. - ✔✔✔-3. No,
because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real
covenant that runs with B's land.
A and B were dating when they jointly bought Blackacre, each contributing half of the purchase
price. One year later, however, A and B dissolved their personal relationship, and A moved out
of Blackacre. B would like to terminate the co-tenancy, but A insists that B has no right to do so
other than conveying his half-interest to A at "fair market value." B and A cannot, however,
agree on what a "fair market" price for half of Blackacre would be. Can B end the co-tenancy?
1. Yes, because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court.
2. Yes, because A must accept a conveyance of B's half-interest for a price that a third-party
appraiser sets as "fair."
3. Yes, but only through a judicially ordered sale of Blackacre.
4. No, because partition must be accomplished by voluntary exchange of mutual deeds among
co-tenants.
5. No, because there has been no voluntary sale of Blackacre to a third party - ✔✔✔-1. Yes,
because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court.
A owns Redacre, but is not living there. B moved onto Redacre. Six months later, B delivered a
signed, notarized deed purporting to convey Redacre to C. When C arrived at Redacre the next
day, she found that D had taken possession of the property. Can C remove D?
,Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
1. Yes, because of privity.
2. Yes, because C now owns the property per adverse possession.
3. No, because of possessor rights.
4. No, because she does not own the property per adverse possession. - ✔✔✔-1. Yes, because
of privity.
Barak devised his property, Whiteacre, to "Donald and Hillary, jointly and not as tenants in
common, until either of them is sworn is as President of the United States, and thereafter to Jill
for her life." Who holds what interests in Whiteacre?
1. Donald and Hillary hold a life estate as tenants in common, Jill holds a vested remainder in
life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
2. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as tenants in
common, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple
absolute.
3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill
holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
4. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill
holds an executory interest - ✔✔✔-3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an
executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak
holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
Ben owns a 0.75-acre lot in the City, which is more than twice the size of most improved lots in
the neighborhood ("improved" = lots w/homes on them). Ben applied for a subdivision approval
to divide his property into two lots (so he could sell one and build on the other). Although the
neighborhood in which Ben's lot is located has for years had a minimum lot size of 0.33 acres,
homeowners in the community had begun to put pressure on the local officials to downzone
the neighborhood (change the zoning to mandate lower density). While Ben's application was
pending, the City bowed to popular pressure and downzoned the neighborhood, requiring that
all lots be a minimum of a half-acre in order to be improved. According to this new zoning
, Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
standard, Ben cannot divide his 0.75-acre lot into two build able lots. The new zoning laws
applied to the entire neighborhoods, but all smaller-than-a-half-acre improved lots were grant -
✔✔✔-4. The down-zoning interferes with Ben's vested rights because he had already applied
for subdivision under the old zoning standard.
Blackacre is located in a neighborhood designated "General Commercial" under the applicable
municipality's comprehensive plan. In the original comprehensive plan, "retail" was listed as a
"permitted uses" for the General Commercial designation. When the municipality learned that
the owner of Blackacre planned to build an erotic book and video store on Blackacre, the
municipality passed an amendment to the comprehensive plan, rezoning Blackacre as
"Residential." The amendment also re-defined the General Commercial designation to permit
"retail other than the sale of erotic or pornographic materials." The owner of Blackacre
challenges these two changes to the municipality's zoning as unconstitional. Will the owner of
Blackacre prevail?
1. Yes, because prohibiting pornographic materials attempts to regulate community morals, not
community health, safety, and welfare.
2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to be a viol - ✔✔✔-2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to
be a violation of the owner's Due Process.
Brother and Sister purchased Blueacre together, with Brother contributing 90% of the purchase
price and Sister contributing 10%, and they agreed that they would hold interests in that same
proportion. Two years after buying Blueacre, Brother married a widow with four children, and
all five of his new family members moved into the house on Blueacre. Sister decided to give
Brother and his new family some space, so she moved in with a friend who lived nearby. One
year after she moved out, Sister received a bill from Brother for 10% of the amount that he had
paid in scheduled mortgage and assessed real estate taxes for Blueacre. Is Sister required to pay
these costs?
1. Yes, because Sister remains a co-owner of Blueacre.
2. No, because there has been no ouster.
Solved
A and B both live along River, with A living upstream from B. A began farming his property and
diverted approximately 20% of the water from River to irrigate his crops. B objected to A's use
of the water from River because B operates a mill on River and the volume of water flowing
through the mill has decreased due to A's irrigation. Under what doctrine(s) can B prevent A's
diversion of the River's water for irrigation use?
1. Under the natural flow doctrine, because irrigation is considered an "artificial use."
2. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, because B's mill was built before A began farming.
3. Under the reasonable use doctrine, because it is unreasonable to use 20% of a river's waters
for irrigation.
4. Both 1 and 2.
5. All of the above. - ✔✔✔-4. Both 1 and 2.
A and B hold record title to contiguous lots (Lots 1 and 2 respectively), but both live in a city
2,000 miles away. C, a con artist, delivered a deed to D purporting to convey both of the lots to
D. D moved into the house on Lot 1 and remained in residence there, openly. D told neighbors
that he owned Lots 1 and 2, paid taxes on both lots, and brought trespass suits against some
people who had been crossing the properties without authorization. After fifteen years, D brings
a quiet title action. Assuming a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years, what is the
likely result?
1. D owns both lots per color of title.
2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession.
3. In a jurisdiction requiring good faith, D would not acquire title because C did not own the
property he purported to convey.
4. Because A and B live far away and lack actual knowledge of D's occupancy, the statutory
period has not yet run against - ✔✔✔-2. D owns Lot 1 due to actual possession.
A and B owned adjacent lots. A paid B $1,000 to sign an agreement promising that B's lot will be
"restricted to residential uses." A recorded the agreement in the land records. Six months later,
,Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
B sold his lot to C, who proceeded to build a gas station on the property. Can A sue C for
damages from violating the residential use restriction?
1. Yes, because the real covenant runs with B's land because it was recorded and touches and
concerns the land.
2. Yes, because A and B were in instantaneous privity when the covenant was signed.
3. No, because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real
covenant that runs with B's land.
4. No, because a residential use restriction does not touch and concern the land. - ✔✔✔-3. No,
because although A may be able to equitably enforce the promise, A did not create a real
covenant that runs with B's land.
A and B were dating when they jointly bought Blackacre, each contributing half of the purchase
price. One year later, however, A and B dissolved their personal relationship, and A moved out
of Blackacre. B would like to terminate the co-tenancy, but A insists that B has no right to do so
other than conveying his half-interest to A at "fair market value." B and A cannot, however,
agree on what a "fair market" price for half of Blackacre would be. Can B end the co-tenancy?
1. Yes, because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court.
2. Yes, because A must accept a conveyance of B's half-interest for a price that a third-party
appraiser sets as "fair."
3. Yes, but only through a judicially ordered sale of Blackacre.
4. No, because partition must be accomplished by voluntary exchange of mutual deeds among
co-tenants.
5. No, because there has been no voluntary sale of Blackacre to a third party - ✔✔✔-1. Yes,
because any unmarried co-tenant may obtain involuntary partition in court.
A owns Redacre, but is not living there. B moved onto Redacre. Six months later, B delivered a
signed, notarized deed purporting to convey Redacre to C. When C arrived at Redacre the next
day, she found that D had taken possession of the property. Can C remove D?
,Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
1. Yes, because of privity.
2. Yes, because C now owns the property per adverse possession.
3. No, because of possessor rights.
4. No, because she does not own the property per adverse possession. - ✔✔✔-1. Yes, because
of privity.
Barak devised his property, Whiteacre, to "Donald and Hillary, jointly and not as tenants in
common, until either of them is sworn is as President of the United States, and thereafter to Jill
for her life." Who holds what interests in Whiteacre?
1. Donald and Hillary hold a life estate as tenants in common, Jill holds a vested remainder in
life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
2. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as tenants in
common, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple
absolute.
3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill
holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
4. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill
holds an executory interest - ✔✔✔-3. Donald and Hillary hold a fee simple subject to an
executory limitation as joint tenants, Jill holds an executory interest in life estate, and Barak
holds a reversion in fee simple absolute.
Ben owns a 0.75-acre lot in the City, which is more than twice the size of most improved lots in
the neighborhood ("improved" = lots w/homes on them). Ben applied for a subdivision approval
to divide his property into two lots (so he could sell one and build on the other). Although the
neighborhood in which Ben's lot is located has for years had a minimum lot size of 0.33 acres,
homeowners in the community had begun to put pressure on the local officials to downzone
the neighborhood (change the zoning to mandate lower density). While Ben's application was
pending, the City bowed to popular pressure and downzoned the neighborhood, requiring that
all lots be a minimum of a half-acre in order to be improved. According to this new zoning
, Property Law Practice Questions and Answers (2025-2026) – Updated – 100%
Solved
standard, Ben cannot divide his 0.75-acre lot into two build able lots. The new zoning laws
applied to the entire neighborhoods, but all smaller-than-a-half-acre improved lots were grant -
✔✔✔-4. The down-zoning interferes with Ben's vested rights because he had already applied
for subdivision under the old zoning standard.
Blackacre is located in a neighborhood designated "General Commercial" under the applicable
municipality's comprehensive plan. In the original comprehensive plan, "retail" was listed as a
"permitted uses" for the General Commercial designation. When the municipality learned that
the owner of Blackacre planned to build an erotic book and video store on Blackacre, the
municipality passed an amendment to the comprehensive plan, rezoning Blackacre as
"Residential." The amendment also re-defined the General Commercial designation to permit
"retail other than the sale of erotic or pornographic materials." The owner of Blackacre
challenges these two changes to the municipality's zoning as unconstitional. Will the owner of
Blackacre prevail?
1. Yes, because prohibiting pornographic materials attempts to regulate community morals, not
community health, safety, and welfare.
2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to be a viol - ✔✔✔-2. Yes, because spot-zoning is likely to
be a violation of the owner's Due Process.
Brother and Sister purchased Blueacre together, with Brother contributing 90% of the purchase
price and Sister contributing 10%, and they agreed that they would hold interests in that same
proportion. Two years after buying Blueacre, Brother married a widow with four children, and
all five of his new family members moved into the house on Blueacre. Sister decided to give
Brother and his new family some space, so she moved in with a friend who lived nearby. One
year after she moved out, Sister received a bill from Brother for 10% of the amount that he had
paid in scheduled mortgage and assessed real estate taxes for Blueacre. Is Sister required to pay
these costs?
1. Yes, because Sister remains a co-owner of Blueacre.
2. No, because there has been no ouster.
