1 | Page
Barbri - Practice Set Questions - MBE Questions
and Correct Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property should
go on his death "in fee simple to my friend, but if during my friend's lifetime my
son has children and those children are alive when my friend dies, then to said
living children." When the owner died, the friend took over the restaurant.
If the son has children and one or more of them are alive when the friend dies,
who will take title to the restaurant at that time?
A The friend's heirs, because the attempted gift to the son's children is invalid
under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B The son's children, because their interest is not contingent, being a possibility of
reverter.
C The son's children, because their interest is vested, subject to defeasance.
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being
plus 21 years.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life
in being plus 21 years.
The interest given to the son's children does not violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities because the interest will vest, if at all, within 21 years after the life of
the friend. Pursuant to the Rule Against Perpetuities, no interest in property is
valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after one or more lives in
being at the creation of the interest. In the case of a will, the perpetuities period
begins to run on the date of the testator's death, and measuring lives used to
show the validity of an interest must be in existence at that time. Here, the
interest given to any of the son's children who are born during the friend's
lifetime and who survive the friend must vest, if at all, on the death of the friend
(who is a life in being at the time of the owner's death). Thus, this interest will
vest, if it does vest, within 21 years after the friend's life, and is therefore not in
violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities. (A) is therefore incorrect; if one or
more of the son's children is alive at the time of the friend's death, the friend's
heirs will get nothing because their fee simple will be divested. (B) incorrectly
characterizes the interest of the son's children as a possibility of reverter. A
possibility of reverter is the future interest left in a grantor who conveys a fee
simple determinable estate. Although under different circumstances the son's
children could acquire a possibility of reverter as heirs of the grantor (the owner),
their interest in this case was conveyed directly to them in the owner's will. (C) is
incorrect because the interest of the son's children is not vested. Their interest is
a shifting executory interest rather than a remainder because it divests the fee sim
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a
driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor's bushes
obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and
brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the
city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring
homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with
driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the
neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has
adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
B Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90%
Ans: The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage
award.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute more
than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting
or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or regularly engaging
in such activities."
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the
constitutionality of this ordinance?
A Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and
freedom of association.
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing mechanism has
been provided for.
C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling such
contributions.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
D Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a
nonjusticiable matter.
Ans: Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech
and freedom of association.
A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations valid
under its statutory mandate requiring that all employers in the state provide
ionizing air purification systems for all employee work areas. These regulations
replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were generally not
mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification used.
The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be
unconstitutional as applied to which of the following employers?
A A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail outlets
within the state.
B The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new
courthouse with a non-ionizing air purification system which the builder is
contractually bound to maintain for the next three years.
C A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state
capitol building.
DA
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
Barbri - Practice Set Questions - MBE Questions
and Correct Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property should
go on his death "in fee simple to my friend, but if during my friend's lifetime my
son has children and those children are alive when my friend dies, then to said
living children." When the owner died, the friend took over the restaurant.
If the son has children and one or more of them are alive when the friend dies,
who will take title to the restaurant at that time?
A The friend's heirs, because the attempted gift to the son's children is invalid
under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B The son's children, because their interest is not contingent, being a possibility of
reverter.
C The son's children, because their interest is vested, subject to defeasance.
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being
plus 21 years.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life
in being plus 21 years.
The interest given to the son's children does not violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities because the interest will vest, if at all, within 21 years after the life of
the friend. Pursuant to the Rule Against Perpetuities, no interest in property is
valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after one or more lives in
being at the creation of the interest. In the case of a will, the perpetuities period
begins to run on the date of the testator's death, and measuring lives used to
show the validity of an interest must be in existence at that time. Here, the
interest given to any of the son's children who are born during the friend's
lifetime and who survive the friend must vest, if at all, on the death of the friend
(who is a life in being at the time of the owner's death). Thus, this interest will
vest, if it does vest, within 21 years after the friend's life, and is therefore not in
violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities. (A) is therefore incorrect; if one or
more of the son's children is alive at the time of the friend's death, the friend's
heirs will get nothing because their fee simple will be divested. (B) incorrectly
characterizes the interest of the son's children as a possibility of reverter. A
possibility of reverter is the future interest left in a grantor who conveys a fee
simple determinable estate. Although under different circumstances the son's
children could acquire a possibility of reverter as heirs of the grantor (the owner),
their interest in this case was conveyed directly to them in the owner's will. (C) is
incorrect because the interest of the son's children is not vested. Their interest is
a shifting executory interest rather than a remainder because it divests the fee sim
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a
driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor's bushes
obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and
brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the
city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring
homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with
driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the
neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has
adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
B Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90%
Ans: The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage
award.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute more
than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting
or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or regularly engaging
in such activities."
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the
constitutionality of this ordinance?
A Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and
freedom of association.
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing mechanism has
been provided for.
C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling such
contributions.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
D Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a
nonjusticiable matter.
Ans: Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech
and freedom of association.
A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations valid
under its statutory mandate requiring that all employers in the state provide
ionizing air purification systems for all employee work areas. These regulations
replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were generally not
mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification used.
The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be
unconstitutional as applied to which of the following employers?
A A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail outlets
within the state.
B The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new
courthouse with a non-ionizing air purification system which the builder is
contractually bound to maintain for the next three years.
C A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state
capitol building.
DA
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
