1
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
Barbri - Practice Set Questions - MBE
Questions and Answers (100% Correct
Answers) Already Graded A+
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
© 2025 Assignment Expert
the owner died, the friend took over the restaurant.
Guru01 - Stuvia
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.
, 2
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within
a life in being plus 21 years. [ 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
© 2025 Assignment Expert
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
Guru01 - Stuvia
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
, 3
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
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 Assignment Expert
Guru01 - Stuvia
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."
, 4
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
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.
© 2025 Assignment Expert
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing
Guru01 - Stuvia
mechanism has been provided for.
C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in
controlling such contributions.
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
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
Barbri - Practice Set Questions - MBE
Questions and Answers (100% Correct
Answers) Already Graded A+
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
© 2025 Assignment Expert
the owner died, the friend took over the restaurant.
Guru01 - Stuvia
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.
, 2
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within
a life in being plus 21 years. [ 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
© 2025 Assignment Expert
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
Guru01 - Stuvia
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
, 3
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
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 Assignment Expert
Guru01 - Stuvia
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."
, 4
For Expert help and assignment solutions, +254707240657
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.
© 2025 Assignment Expert
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing
Guru01 - Stuvia
mechanism has been provided for.
C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in
controlling such contributions.
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
