LAW 402B - PROPERTY - FINAL EXAM 2025/26 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS.
Pierson v. Post - (ANSWER)Pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman. Even pursuit
accompanies with wounding is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken.
Popov v. Hayashi - (ANSWER)Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal
property of another
Requirements of Conversion (3) - (ANSWER)Actual interference with the plaintiff's dominion, intent,
actor must retain control over the thing
Pre-possessory interest - (ANSWER)Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to
achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the
unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. That
pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support a cause of action
for conversion
Moore v. Regents (2) - (ANSWER)1) To establish conversion, the plaintiff must establish actual
interference with his ownership or right of possession. Where the plaintiff neither has title to the
property alleged to have been converted, nor possession thereof, he cannot maintain an action for
conversion.
2) Under the duty to obtain informed consent, a doctor must disclose his intent in using a patient's cells
for research and economic gain.
Intel Corporation v. Hamidi - (ANSWER)Trespass to chattels occurs only when an intentional interference
with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury.
Trespass to Chattels vs Conversion Remedy - (ANSWER)Trespass to chattels only allows for actual
damages while conversion can require fair market value of property in question
Johnson v. McIntosh - (ANSWER)Doctrine of Discovery justified the court holding that two sovereigns
may not hold complete title to land and therefore, because Indians are uncivilized savages, they hold
only a use and occupancy right to the land and thus, cannot give away property title. Furthermore,
"discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against
all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession."
, LAW 402B - PROPERTY - FINAL EXAM 2025/26 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS.
Howard v. Kunto - (ANSWER)Adverse possession occurs when a person takes actual possession of
property that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, under a claim of right for a
statutorily specified period of time. (AU ON HE SP)
Tacking - (ANSWER)Adding or combining successive periods of continuous occupation of real property
by adverse possessors. This concept enables someone who has not been in possession for the entire
statutory period to establish a claim of adverse possession. Permitted if privity exists.
Gruen v. Gruen - (ANSWER)Inter vivos gift requires intent, delivery, and acceptance
Cole v. Steinlauf - (ANSWER)It is the seller's obligation to deliver "marketable title." The issue is not
whether the property is/isn't the defendant's to convey, but whether there is enough doubt in the chain
of title to cause trouble for plaintiffs (in the future or now)
Moore v. Phillips - (ANSWER)A life tenant is obligated to maintain the property in good repair so as to
prevent decay and waste and preserve the property for those owners with future interests. Laches and
Estoppel
Laches and Estoppel - (ANSWER)the denial of a claim that hasn't been acted on in a timely manner
(i.e.Some courts will deny someone the right to make a claim because they took too long or were
negligent).
Murphy v. Financial Development Corp. - (ANSWER)2 fiduciaries duties GOOD FAITH and DUE
DILIGENCE. Good Faith: The court reversed the lower court on its ruling regarding good faith. Financial
Development Corp. had tried on numerous occasions to allow Ps to refinance, as well as giving the Ps
numerous extensions in time in which to pay arrears. This combined with compliance with procedural
foreclosure notices was sufficient to demonstrate good faith.
Due Diligence - The court found that FDC had failed to uphold this duty of due diligence with the
strongest evidence being the immediate sale of the house for a much higher price a few days later to the
Southern Home Traders.
Good Faith - (ANSWER)honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair
dealing
Pierson v. Post - (ANSWER)Pursuit alone vests no property or right in the huntsman. Even pursuit
accompanies with wounding is equally ineffectual for that purpose, unless the animal be actually taken.
Popov v. Hayashi - (ANSWER)Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal
property of another
Requirements of Conversion (3) - (ANSWER)Actual interference with the plaintiff's dominion, intent,
actor must retain control over the thing
Pre-possessory interest - (ANSWER)Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to
achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the
unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally cognizable pre-possessory interest in the property. That
pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support a cause of action
for conversion
Moore v. Regents (2) - (ANSWER)1) To establish conversion, the plaintiff must establish actual
interference with his ownership or right of possession. Where the plaintiff neither has title to the
property alleged to have been converted, nor possession thereof, he cannot maintain an action for
conversion.
2) Under the duty to obtain informed consent, a doctor must disclose his intent in using a patient's cells
for research and economic gain.
Intel Corporation v. Hamidi - (ANSWER)Trespass to chattels occurs only when an intentional interference
with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury.
Trespass to Chattels vs Conversion Remedy - (ANSWER)Trespass to chattels only allows for actual
damages while conversion can require fair market value of property in question
Johnson v. McIntosh - (ANSWER)Doctrine of Discovery justified the court holding that two sovereigns
may not hold complete title to land and therefore, because Indians are uncivilized savages, they hold
only a use and occupancy right to the land and thus, cannot give away property title. Furthermore,
"discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against
all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession."
, LAW 402B - PROPERTY - FINAL EXAM 2025/26 QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE SOLUTIONS.
Howard v. Kunto - (ANSWER)Adverse possession occurs when a person takes actual possession of
property that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, under a claim of right for a
statutorily specified period of time. (AU ON HE SP)
Tacking - (ANSWER)Adding or combining successive periods of continuous occupation of real property
by adverse possessors. This concept enables someone who has not been in possession for the entire
statutory period to establish a claim of adverse possession. Permitted if privity exists.
Gruen v. Gruen - (ANSWER)Inter vivos gift requires intent, delivery, and acceptance
Cole v. Steinlauf - (ANSWER)It is the seller's obligation to deliver "marketable title." The issue is not
whether the property is/isn't the defendant's to convey, but whether there is enough doubt in the chain
of title to cause trouble for plaintiffs (in the future or now)
Moore v. Phillips - (ANSWER)A life tenant is obligated to maintain the property in good repair so as to
prevent decay and waste and preserve the property for those owners with future interests. Laches and
Estoppel
Laches and Estoppel - (ANSWER)the denial of a claim that hasn't been acted on in a timely manner
(i.e.Some courts will deny someone the right to make a claim because they took too long or were
negligent).
Murphy v. Financial Development Corp. - (ANSWER)2 fiduciaries duties GOOD FAITH and DUE
DILIGENCE. Good Faith: The court reversed the lower court on its ruling regarding good faith. Financial
Development Corp. had tried on numerous occasions to allow Ps to refinance, as well as giving the Ps
numerous extensions in time in which to pay arrears. This combined with compliance with procedural
foreclosure notices was sufficient to demonstrate good faith.
Due Diligence - The court found that FDC had failed to uphold this duty of due diligence with the
strongest evidence being the immediate sale of the house for a much higher price a few days later to the
Southern Home Traders.
Good Faith - (ANSWER)honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair
dealing
