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: | 360 Weeks Ago, 4 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. The
warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be
included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a
public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course.
(Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using
Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the
park and along Shoepke’s property as part of a two-mile
public trail system. The deed allowed Roche citizens the
right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot
beside Wayakichi Creek.
Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the
walking path behind Shoepke’s property over his yard to the
adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the
teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his
yard.
Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased
the second floor out to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The
lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke’s consent would
be required to sublease the second floor.) After three
months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local
artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months,
Indalecio’s use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in
Shoepke’s home. Using the information presented in the
chapter, answer the following questions.
1. What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walk
across Shoepke’s land on the trail?
2. What covenants would most courts infer were included in
the warranty deed that Shoepke received when he bought the
home?
3. Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the
damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Explain.
4. Suppose that Slater—to offset her liability for the
carpet damage caused by Indalecio—files a counterclaim
against Shoepke for breach of the covenant of quiet
enjoyment. Could the fact that teenagers continually throw
Frisbees over Shoepke’s yard outside the second-floor
windows arguably be a breach of the covenant of quiet
enjoyment? Why or why not?
-----------