benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1106 / A farm and an orchard are adjoining tracts of land located in a county. In 2006,…

Problem

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

question

A farm and an orchard are adjoining tracts of land located in a county. In 2006, a farmer purchased the farm, a 10-acre tract, in fee simple absolute. The orchard, a 20-acre tract situated to the north of the farm, 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 farm under such terms and circumstances that an easement appurtenant to the orchard 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 orchard to the farmer. The next year, the farmer conveyed the orchard by deed to an investor for a consideration of $250,000, 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 farm. The farmer, on the other hand, has informed the investor that no such easement exists. Assume that both the farm and the orchard abut a public highway and that ingress and egress are afforded the investor by that highway. In an appropriate action by the investor to determine her right to use the right-of-way across the farm, she should

category

law

options

  1. win, because the farmer had constructive notice of the easement.
  2. lose, because the right-of-way was abandoned inasmuch as there never was any actual use made.
  3. lose, because the easement was extinguished by merger when the farmer acquired the orchard from the rancher.
  4. lose, because the easement was not in use at the time of the sale to the investor.
  5. lose, because the investor has reasonable access to the public highway without using the right-of-way.
  6. win, because the investor has a right to access all parts of her property.
  7. lose, because the easement was not specifically mentioned in the deed between the farmer and the investor.
  8. win, because the right-of-way was never officially terminated.
  9. win, because the investor acquired an easement by implication.
  10. win, because the original deed clearly states the existence of the right-of-way.

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
1106
task_id
d74684ee-4152-58ca-bcb6-d5faffec27fb
task_key
default--test--1106
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import