benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1239 / An investor owned a four-story office building located in downtown. The building…

Problem

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

question

An investor owned a four-story office building located in downtown. The building was old and badly in need of renovation. To finance the improvements, the investor borrowed 125,000fromhisfriend.Asconsiderationfortheloan,theinvestorexecutedapromissorynotefor125,000 from his friend. As consideration for the loan, the investor executed a promissory note for 125,000 payable to the friend in one year and secured by a mortgage on the building. The mortgage was dated January 1, and was recorded January 2. Thereafter, on February 1, the investor executed a deed absolute on the building and named the friend as grantee. This deed, although absolute in form, was intended only as additional security for the payment of the debt. In order to make judicial foreclosure unnecessary and to eliminate the right to redeem, the investor then delivered the deed to his nephew in escrow with instructions to deliver the deed to the friend if the investor failed to pay his promissory note at maturity. On January 1 of the following year, the investor failed to pay the note when it came due. Thereupon, the nephew, in accordance with the escrow instructions, delivered the investor's deed on the office building to the friend, which the friend promptly and properly recorded. Two weeks later, the investor tendered the $125,000 indebtedness to the friend. When the friend refused to accept it, the investor brought an appropriate action to set aside and cancel the deed absolute and to permit the redemption of the building from the friend. Conversely, the friend counterclaimed to quiet title and argued that the deed absolute was intended as an outright conveyance upon default. The court should enter a judgment that will grant the relief sought by
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
An investor owned a four-story office building located in downtown. The building was old and badly in need of renovation. To finance the improvements, the investor borrowed 125,000fromhisfriend.Asconsiderationfortheloan,theinvestorexecutedapromissorynotefor125,000 payable to the friend in one year and secured by a mortgage on the building. The mortgage was dated January 1, and was recorded January 2. Thereafter, on February 1, the investor executed a deed absolute on the building and named the friend as grantee. This deed, although absolute in form, was intended only as additional security for the payment of the debt. In order to make judicial foreclosure unnecessary and to eliminate the right to redeem, the investor then delivered the deed to his nephew in escrow with instructions to deliver the deed to the friend if the investor failed to pay his promissory note at maturity. On January 1 of the following year, the investor failed to pay the note when it came due. Thereupon, the nephew, in accordance with the escrow instructions, delivered the investor's deed on the office building to the friend, which the friend promptly and properly recorded. Two weeks later, the investor tendered the $125,000 indebtedness to the friend. When the friend refused to accept it, the investor brought an appropriate action to set aside and cancel the deed absolute and to permit the redemption of the building from the friend. Conversely, the friend counterclaimed to quiet title and argued that the deed absolute was intended as an outright conveyance upon default. The court should enter a judgment that will grant the relief sought by
Original LaTeX notation
An investor owned a four-story office building located in downtown. The building was old and badly in need of renovation. To finance the improvements, the investor borrowed $125,000 from his friend. As consideration for the loan, the investor executed a promissory note for $125,000 payable to the friend in one year and secured by a mortgage on the building. The mortgage was dated January 1, and was recorded January 2. Thereafter, on February 1, the investor executed a deed absolute on the building and named the friend as grantee. This deed, although absolute in form, was intended only as additional security for the payment of the debt. In order to make judicial foreclosure unnecessary and to eliminate the right to redeem, the investor then delivered the deed to his nephew in escrow with instructions to deliver the deed to the friend if the investor failed to pay his promissory note at maturity. On January 1 of the following year, the investor failed to pay the note when it came due. Thereupon, the nephew, in accordance with the escrow instructions, delivered the investor's deed on the office building to the friend, which the friend promptly and properly recorded. Two weeks later, the investor tendered the $125,000 indebtedness to the friend. When the friend refused to accept it, the investor brought an appropriate action to set aside and cancel the deed absolute and to permit the redemption of the building from the friend. Conversely, the friend counterclaimed to quiet title and argued that the deed absolute was intended as an outright conveyance upon default. The court should enter a judgment that will grant the relief sought by

category

law

options

  1. the investor, but only if the investor can establish that the mortgage takes precedence over the deed absolute because it was executed earlier in time.
  2. the friend, because the deed absolute effectuated an outright conveyance that extinguished the redemption interest sought to be retained by the investor.
  3. the friend, because the investor has no right to redeem after the deed absolute was executed.
  4. the friend, if the friend can establish that the deed absolute was executed later in time.
  5. the investor, because the deed absolute did not extinguish his right of redemption.
  6. the friend, because the investor failed to pay his promissory note at maturity.
  7. the investor, because the friend refused to accept the $125,000 indebtedness.
  8. the investor, if the investor can prove that the deed was intended only as additional security for the payment of the debt.
  9. the investor, because the deed absolute was not intended as an outright conveyance upon default.

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
1239
task_id
d3790d5b-46f7-5e9e-a7f0-7a77a76ce026
task_key
default--test--1239
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import