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.

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.