benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1014 / An orange grove and a vineyard are adjoining tracts of land located in a county.…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

An orange grove and a vineyard are adjoining tracts of land located in a county. In 2006, a farmer purchased the orange grove, a 10-acre tract, in fee simple absolute. The vineyard, a 20-acre tract situated to the north of the orange grove, was owned by a rancher in fee simple absolute. A remote predecessor of the farmer had granted to a shepherd a way for egress and ingress across the orange grove under such terms and circumstances that an easement appurtenant to the vineyard was created. This right-of-way was executed by deed and properly recorded. The shepherd, however, never made any actual use of the right-of-way. In 2010, the rancher conveyed the vineyard to the farmer. The next year, the farmer conveyed the vineyard by deed to an investor for a consideration of $200,000, receipt of which was acknowledged. Neither the rancher €”farmer deed nor the farmer €” investor deed contained any reference to the easement for right-of-way. The investor has now claimed that she has a right-of-way across the orange grove. The farmer, on the other hand, has informed the investor that no such easement exists. Assume that the orange grove abuts a public highway. The only access to that public highway for the vineyard is across the orange grove. If the investor initiates an appropriate action to determine her right to use the right-of-way across the orange grove, she should

category

law

options

  1. prevail, because once an easement is properly recorded, it remains in effect ad finem until expressly released.
  2. prevail, because the farmer was aware of the easement when he purchased the vineyard.
  3. not prevail, because any easements were extinguished by merger when the farmer acquired a fee simple in the vineyard.
  4. prevail, because the vineyard has no other access to the public highway.
  5. not prevail, because the easement was never actually used by the shepherd.
  6. prevail, because an easement by implication arose from the farmer's conveyance to the investor.
  7. prevail, because the right-of-way was granted by a remote predecessor and not the farmer.
  8. not prevail, because the farmer has the right to revoke the easement at any time.
  9. not prevail, because the deed of conveyance from the farmer to the investor failed to contain any mention of the right-of-way.
  10. not prevail, because the right-of-way was not included in the farmer-investor deed.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1014
task_id
2624ddf8-06a3-599f-a580-2cc802241eff
task_key
default--test--1014
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import