Page 1 of 5
This study source was downloaded by 100000900559687 from CourseHero.com on 10-10-2025 01:59:51 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/252072126/Case-Questions-Interests-In-Real-Property-Templatedocxpdf/
GOVT 406
emphasizing textual interpretation (Merrill & Smith, Property: Principles and Policies (4th ed.
2022)).
2. Why is the language in the parties’ original agreement so important in this case?
The original agreement’s language was critical because restrictive covenants are strictly
construed against restrictions on land use. The court looked at the covenant’s express terms and
found no prohibition on signs.
3. Why is the sign permitted to remain?
The covenant language did not forbid signage, the court allowed the sign to remain. Restrictive
covenants must clearly prohibit conduct; otherwise, courts will not extend restrictions by
implication.
4. Does the presence of another access road to the property influence the court’s
decision? Why?
The presence of another access road was also influential. The court reasoned that because the
easement holder still had access, the sign did not unreasonably interfere with easement rights.
This aligns with precedent that easements protect reasonable—not absolute—use (Joseph Bros.
Co. v. Dunn Bros., 148 N.E.3d at 1267).
Citation: Joseph Bros. Co., LLC v. Dunn Bros., Ltd., 148 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
IN RE Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (W.D. Mo. 2014).
1. Explain what the sale agreement provided.
The sale agreement provided that fixtures and improvements passed with the real estate, but
unless listed, personal property did not. The dispute centered on whether a hydraulic cattle chute
was a fixture.
2. Could the cattle chute be used anywhere?
GOVT 406
The cattle chute was portable and mobile, meaning it was not annexed to the land and could be
used anywhere. Courts typically apply the annexation–adaptation–intent test to determine fixture
status (In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. at 792).
3. Why does the representation of the auctioneer about the chute not matter?
The auctioneer’s representation that the chute was included did not matter because the parol
evidence rule prevents oral statements from altering written agreements. Scholarly commentary
has stressed that “boilerplate contract provisions govern in fixture disputes unless clearly
displaced by agreement” (Becker, “Fixtures and the Problem of Real Estate Sales,” 2015 Bankr.
Real Estate Insights).
Citation: In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2014).
Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 214 So.3d 232 (Mississippi 2017).
1. Outline the parties involved in the contract and their relationships.
The parties included Ground Control (sub-subcontractor), Capsco (subcontractor), the prime
contractor, and the casino project owner.
2. List all of the theories Ground Control used to recover for its work.
Ground Control advanced theories of breach of contract, third-party beneficiary, and unjust
enrichment.
3. What testimony resulted in a contradiction to Ground Control’s claim for damages?
Testimony revealed Capsco had already paid amounts due, undermining the damages claim.
4. Why can’t Ground Control recover under a contract theory?
Ground Control could not recover under contract because Mississippi law voids contracts made
by unlicensed contractors (Miss. Code Ann. § 31-3-15).
GOVT 406
5. Why can’t Ground Control recover under a third-party beneficiary theory?
The third-party beneficiary claim failed because Ground Control was only an incidental
beneficiary. Courts distinguish between intended and incidental beneficiaries, with only the
former having enforceable rights (Corbin on Contracts § 776 (rev. ed. 2021)).
6. What is the public policy issue that arises because Ground Control was not licensed?
Public policy was central. Mississippi requires construction contractors to be licensed for safety
and consumer protection. Courts refuse to enforce contracts where licensing requirements are
unmet, even if unjust enrichment results (Hodgin, “The Public Policy of Contractor Licensing,”
2019 J. Constr. L. 112, 120).
Citation: Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Indus., Inc., 214 So. 3d 232 (Miss. 2017).
Withington V. Derrick, 572 A.2d 912 (Vt. 1990).
1. What deed language created the confusion about ownership?
Confusion arose from the deed’s reference to land of “Haff” instead of “Hoff.” This small
variation created ambiguity about the boundary description.
2. To whom does the trial court award title and why? What does the appellate court do?
The trial court awarded title to Derrick, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding
ambiguity required application of construction rules.
3. In reviewing the deeds and the ambiguities, what rules does the appellate court follow?
The Vermont Supreme Court held that ambiguous deeds must be construed against the grantor
and in line with parties’ intent. Extrinsic evidence is permissible only if deed language remains
unclear (Withington v. Derrick, 572 A.2d at 915).
4. What is the significance of “Haff” versus “Hoff”?
GOVT 406
The “Haff” versus “Hoff” distinction was pivotal, because referencing one or the other meant
conveying a different tract altogether. As Merrill and Smith note, “deed interpretation often turns
on the smallest linguistic detail, yet courts consistently rely on longstanding construction rules
to resolve disputes” (Property: Principles and Policies, 4th ed. 2022).
Citation: Withington v. Derrick, 572 A.2d 912 (Vt. 1990).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
