A mother, the owner of the family homestead, planned to retire to a warmer climate. She had two children, a daughter and a son. The mother executed a deed of the homestead and delivered it to her daughter. In addition to a description of the property, the deed contained the following language: “Grantee, by acceptance of this deed, agrees to provide a bedroom in the property known as the family homestead for the use of my son during his lifetime.” The mother died soon after moving, leaving her entire estate to her daughter and son in equal shares. The son, upset by his mother’s death, sank deep into alcoholism. The daughter, unwilling to tolerate the son’s behavior, prohibited him from entering the homestead.
The son then brought a suit against the daughter to establish a one-half interest in the homestead.
In that lawsuit,
A. The son will prevail, because the daughter breached her contractual obligation to him.
B. The son will prevail, because the condition in the deed to the daughter was broken.
C. The daughter will prevail, because the mother retained no interest in the homestead.
D. The daughter will prevail, because the son’s conduct terminated the rights he had to an interest in the homestead.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer C as in Cheese is correct. The deed from the mother to the daughter created a fee simple in the daughter. Therefore, the son has no claim on the property, even if the daughter breaches her contractual obligation to him.
Answer A is incorrect even though the mother’s deed to the daugher did create a contractual obligation on the part of the daughter to provide a room for her brother. However, the breach of a contractual obligation will not give the son a right to take any interest in the property. At most, it will give him a right to sue for breach of the contract on a third-party beneficiary theory.
Answer B is incorrect. The language of the deed from the mother to the daughter does not create a conditional fee simple. Rather, it contains language of contractual obligation which creates a covenant. Therefore, the son will not prevail on the basis of a broken condition, and a breach of covenant will not give him a right to take any interest in the title.
Answer D is incorrect. This choice correctly states that the daughter will prevail, but sets forth the wrong reason. The deed from the mother to the daughter created a fee simple, and there is no retained interest in the mother. Therefore, the son has no claim to an interest in the property. He has only a contractual right as a third-party beneficiary to sue on the covenant in the deed.
c —- son has no interest
C as in Cheese.
C is the best answer. A and B are saying the same thing, and most of the time when 2 answers say the same thing, they are both wrong.
answer c only….i finally see why
answer c but does anyone think anything of answer b
I believe the best answer is C for the aforementioned reasoning.
C is the best choice. The language did not effectuate a determinable fee with a possibility of reverter to mother (or mother’s estate).
The Son was never given an title or interest in the property.
there was a mere contractual obligation that daughter had to fulfill, but her failure to do that would not give son any title to the property.
As such, C.