Real 105 Chapter 8 Esoteric Estates Part 1

Subject:Real EstatePrice:15.86 Bought3

Share With

Real 105 Chapter 8 Esoteric Estates Part 1. Study the case of Covina Manor, Inc. v. Hatch and answer the following questions. 1. What is the difference between a license and a tenancy at will? 2. What is the test announced by the Court for determining whether certain use of real estate is a license or a lease? 3. What was the rent in Hatch’s leasehold with Covina? Do not say there was no rent. There had to be rent, even if it is not in the form of money. 4. Study the shortened version of the facts in Covina v. Hatch: While Hatch was employed by Covina, he was given oral permission to occupy one of Covina’s houses. Upon termination of their employment relationship, Covina demanded possession of the premises, served a three-day notice to quit or pay rent, and instigated an unlawful detainer action. Write an IRAC-paragraph analyzing the issue of tenancy at will answering the question as to whether a 30-day notice was required to terminate the tenancy. The answers depends on the establishment of a tenancy at will. The sequence to establish tenancy at will is: 1) who were the parties? 2) was there rent and if so what was the rent? 3) was there tenancy at will and if so is 30day notice required? Discuss this sequence in the analysis part of the IRAC-paragraph. DO NOT USE SUBHEADINGS. Part 2. Study the classification of estates on pages 219-223 and provide a granting clause for each type of estate listed below. Do not define each estate. Write it behind each dash. For example: Fee simple subject to condition subsequent – Tom grants to Nancy 3928 Jeopardy Drive, San Diego, CA 92101, so long as the property is used as a library, but if it is used for any other purpose, then back to Tom. Fee simple absolute – Fee simple defeasible – Fee simple subject to condition subsequent – Life estate – Life estate pur autre vie (literally means “for the life of another,” e.g., Owen grants Albert for the life of Ben) – Contingent life estate – This entire discussion is worth 2 points. " Covina manor, inc. v. hatch133 C.A.2d Supp. 790 (1955) [While defendant was employed by plaintiff, he was given oral per-mission to occupy one of plaintiff ’s houses. Upon termination of their relationship, plaintiff demanded possession of the premises, served a three-day notice to quit or pay rent, and instigated an unlawful detainer action. Contrary to plaintiff ’s assertion that pos-session was under a license, defendant alleged that occupancy was pursuant to a tenancy at will. Therefore, defendant further claimed that 30day notice must be given to terminate the estate. Because it was not given, defendant claims the unlawful detainer action is premature and will not lie.] PATROSSO, JUSTICE. A tenancy at will is an estate that sim-ply confers a right to the possession of the premises leased for such indefinite period as both parties shall determine such possession shall continue. The tenant at will is in possession by right with consent of the landlord whether express or implied, and he does not begin to hold unlawfully until the termination of his tenancy. His estate is a leasehold, and he holds in subordination to title of the landlord. A permissive occupation of real estate, where no rent is reserved or paid and no time agreed on to limit the occupation, is a tenancy at will. It is equally well settled that one who enters upon land by per-mission of the owner under a void parole contract or under a void lease, or pending unexecuted negotiations for a written lease, is a tenant at will. Thus, whether we accept the testimony to the effect that defendants were granted oral permission to occupy the prem-ises without specification as to time or rent, or whether we accept entry under a verbal agreement (invalid under the statute of frauds) that the property was conveyed in consideration of services to be rendered, the status of the defendants was that of tenants at will" The preceding discussion serves to dispose of plaintiff ’s argu-ment that defendants were mere licensees. A license is an author-ity to do a particular act or series of acts upon the land of another and conveys no estate in the land, whereas a tenancy at will is the permissive right to occupy and enjoy the premises and creates an estate in tenancy. The test, whether an agreement for the use of real estate is a license or a lease, is whether the contract gives exclu-sive possession of the premises against the world, including the owner, in which case it is a lease, or whether it merely confers a privilege to occupy under the owner, in which case it is a license, and this is a question of law arising out of the construction of the instrument. Here, under the evidence, defendant’s occupation of the premises was exclusive even as against the plaintiff. The judgment is reversed. [Thirty days’ statutory notice must be given to first terminate the estate before an unlawful detainer action can be brought.]"