The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD
| Teaching Since: | Apr 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 327 Weeks Ago, 5 Days Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 12843 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 12834 |
MBA, Ph.D in Management
Harvard university
Feb-1997 - Aug-2003
Professor
Strayer University
Jan-2007 - Present
Vern Shoepke bought a two-story home in of Roche, Maine. TheÂ
warranty deed did not specify what covenants would beÂ
included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to aÂ
public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course.Â
(Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but usingÂ
Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of theÂ
park and along Shoepke’s property as part of a two-mileÂ
public trail system. The deed allowed Roche citizens theÂ
right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lotÂ
beside Wayakichi Creek.
Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from theÂ
walking path behind Shoepke’s property over his yard to theÂ
adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at theÂ
teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over hisÂ
yard.
Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leasedÂ
the second floor out to Lauren Slater for nine months. (TheÂ
lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke’s consent wouldÂ
be required to sublease the second floor.) After threeÂ
months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a localÂ
artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months,Â
Indalecio’s use of oil paints damaged the carpeting inÂ
Shoepke’s home. Using the information presented in theÂ
chapter, answer the following questions.
1. What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walkÂ
across Shoepke’s land on the trail?
2. What covenants would most courts infer were included inÂ
the warranty deed that Shoepke received when he bought theÂ
home?
3. Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for theÂ
damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Explain.
4. Suppose that Slater—to offset her liability for theÂ
carpet damage caused by Indalecio—files a counterclaimÂ
against Shoepke for breach of the covenant of quietÂ
enjoyment. Could the fact that teenagers continually throwÂ
Frisbees over Shoepke’s yard outside the second-floorÂ
windows arguably be a breach of the covenant of quietÂ
enjoyment? Why or why not?
-----------