RLUIPA & Nebraska L-T Act

 Alex passed this information on to me:

 A Property student asked for confirmation on if you had told the class that for Nebraska landlord tenant and RLUIPA exam questions, you would provide the relevant provisions on the exam.  I don't recall you stating this, but I just wanted to confirm with you.

And here is my answer to Alex:

No. I said if I thought they needed the text of RLUIPA [to answer a complex question], I would provide it. Nothing about landlord-tenant act. They should have basic knowledge of both statutes.

In other words, I expect you to have a reasonable understanding of the basic substance of both RLUIPA & the Nebraska Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. Basically, know the provisions we discussed and analyzed. If I were to ask a complex issue of statutory construction, I would quote the relevant statutory provisions. But I expect you to know the basic doctrines and definitions that we discussed in class.

Basically, assume I have reasonable expectations about your knowledge of the materials we covered. I am a reasonable test writer (not unreasonably reasonable, just ordinarily reasonable), and my expectations of your knowledge are reasonable.

See you Monday at 5 PM.

Exam Q & A Session: Monday April 28 @ 5 PM

 I have scheduled an Exam Q & A session for Monday April 28 at 5 PM in Room 113.

 

Exam Information

 

Final Examination

April 30, 2025                                 

Four (4) Hours

Examplify Mode: Secure          

 

 

BE SURE YOUR EXAMINATION

IS COMPLETE

 

Exam Number __________

 

                                                                       

                                                                 INSTRUCTIONS

 

1.         You must complete this examination using Examplify in the secure mode. Using the wrong Examplify mode is an Honor Code violation.

 

2.         This is a four hour closed book/closed network examination.  You may not have any written or printed materials with you while taking the examination nor may you consult any written or printed materials before turning in all portions of the examination.

 

No cell phones or other unauthorized electronics are allowed in the exam room.

 

3.         Be sure that you have all pages of the examination question packet.

 

4.         Be sure to place your examination number (not your name) on page 1 of this question sheet.

 

5.         If you finish the exam more than five minutes early, you can turn in your exam in the Dean's Office.  Otherwise, you must turn in your exam in this room.

 

6.         You must return the exam questions and all used scratch paper, however nothing written on this exam or any scratch paper will be graded.

 

7.         Confidentiality: It is an Honor Code violation to share these exam questions with anyone. It is also an Honor Code violation to retain a copy of this exam in any format (printed, downloaded, scanned, photographed, etc.).

 

8.         Unless otherwise indicated in the questions, answer the questions in accordance with traditional common law rules and principles.  In particular, unless otherwise indicated, you should consider the following to be in force:

 

1.         Statute De Donis Conditionalibus

2.         Statute of Uses

3.         Statute Quia Emptores

4.         Rule in Shelley's Case

5.         Destructibility of Contingent Remainders

6.         Doctrine of Merger

            7.         Rule Against Perpetuities

8.         Ordinary deed capable of creating any type of future interest which could be created by a conveyance operating under the Statute of Uses.

 

9.         This examination consists of 75 multiple choice questions. Your score will be based solely on the number of correct answers.  It is therefore to your advantage to answer all questions.  This examination counts for a total of 375 points and each question is of equal weight.

 

                                                                   GOOD LUCK!

 

Property Spring 2025: Assignment For Week Thirteen

As Shakespeare said, "Our revels now are [almost] ended." Thank you for a great Semester of Property!

 --Casebook p. 662-672

V. Easements, Etc.

--Casebook p. 559-571

--Casebook p. 571-593

Granite Properties Picture

Stoner v. Zucker (p. 571)

Did the parties in this case intend to create an oral license or an oral easement?

In other words, did Pl orally agree to grant Def a perpetual easement for an irrigation ditch?

Or did Pl merely accommodate his neighbor by giving him permission to construct the ditch?

Does it matter? Should it matter?

It is one thing to enforce an oral agreement to grant an easement under some exception to the Statute of Frauds, but it is quite another thing to convert a neighborly oral license into a perpetual, irrevocable easement.

Take a look at p. 573:

“The recognized principal…is that where a licensee has entered under a parol license and has expended money, or its equivalent in labor, in the execution of the license, the license becomes irrevocable, the licensee will have a right of entry upon the lands of the licensor for the purpose of maintaining his structures or, in general, his rights under the license, and the license will continue for so long a time as the nature of it calls for.”


Was Leo Durocher right when he said: "Nice guys finish last."

Stonerv Zucker Hypo

 Suppose you live south of Lincoln, out near Hickman, on Blackacre, a 100-acre tract with a nice single-family home.

 Your next door neighbor on Greenacre, Harvey Grutz, knocks on your door one day and asks you if he can use a little private road across your land that will give him access to a main paved road that abuts on Blackacre.

 He owns a construction company, and he says he will regrade the road a little bit and put down some gravel.

What do you say to him?

What should you say to him?

 So let’s say you say: “well, I guess it will be okay for you to use the road.” I mean you want to be a good neighbor, right?

 He doesn’t pay you anything, no deed or contract, just your oral “go ahead”; he puts down some gravel and he uses the road for 2 or 3 years.

 Now, you decide to put up a horse barn on part of your land—right on top of where that private road is—and when Grutz learns of your plans he sues to enjoin you from interfering with his right of way over Blackacre.

 What result?

 Is the oral permission you gave him, a license? If so, then it is revocable at will right?

If he claims it is an oral easement, is it in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds? Is it appurtenant to Greenacre, and what is its duration? Basically, a permanent easement appurtenant to Greenacre?

All you did was say, “I guess you can use the road.”

So now let’s talk about Stoner v. Zucker on page 571.

Snow v Van Dam: Facts and Issues

Time 1: Grutz  coveys South Lots (1-95)===============> Pls (prior Pls)

                                                                  <covenants-----------

Time 2: Grutz conveys Lots C,D, & E (North Lots)---------->Lenich---->Duncan (puts up snack bar) 

                                                                                 <covenants--

Ti,e 3: Grutz conveys lots 96-100------------------------------>Pls (subsequent Pls)

 

Exactly which covenant is being enforced by Pls in this case? The ones Lenich made on Time 2.

Which lots have the benefit of those covenants?