benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1621 / A homeowner died in 1985. His will devised his estate in a southern state to his…

Problem

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

question

A homeowner died in 1985. His will devised his estate in a southern state to his uncle and his best friend "to share and share alike as tenants in common. "At the time of the homeowner's death, the uncle lived in a different part of the southern state (in which the estate was located), while the best friend resided in a northern state. After the homeowner's funeral, the uncle returned to his own residence, but the best friend decided to occupy the estate. He put his name on the mailbox and has paid the taxes and maintenance expenses. To earn extra money, the best friend rented a small house on the property to a teacher and received a monthly rental payment from her. The best friend also grew fruits on the property and sold them at a stand on Fridays. The uncle has been generally aware of this, but because he cared little about the estate, the uncle has never pressed the best friend about the property. Since 1985 the uncle has not paid any rent or other compensation to the best friend, nor has the best friend requested such payment. In January 2010, a series of disputes arose between the uncle and the best friend for the first time concerning their respective rights to the estate. The state in which the property is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies and follows majority rules on rents and profits. There is no applicable legislation on the subject. The uncle brings an appropriate action for a portion of the proceeds that the best friend received from his fruit stand and a portion of the rent that the teacher paid. If the best friend contests the apportionment of the monies he received, judgment should be for whom?

category

law

options

  1. The uncle is entitled to a share of the profits from the best friend's crops, but not the rent paid by the teacher.
  2. The best friend is entitled to all profits and rents due to his continuous possession and maintenance of the estate.
  3. The uncle is entitled to no share of any of the monies raised because the uncle's lack of contact with the best friend will be deemed a waiver.
  4. The uncle has forfeited all claims to the property and its profits due to his lack of interest and engagement.
  5. The best friend is entitled to all monies raised due to his investment in the property, regardless of the uncle's claim.
  6. The uncle is entitled to all profits and rents due to his blood relation to the deceased homeowner.
  7. As a cotenant in possession, the best friend retains the profits from his crops, and the uncle is entitled to a share of the rent paid by the teacher.
  8. As a cotenant in possession, the best friend retains the profits from his crops and the rents paid by the teacher.
  9. The uncle is entitled to a share of the rent that the teacher paid and the profits from the best friend's crops.
  10. The uncle and best friend must evenly split all profits and rents, regardless of who has been maintaining the property.

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
1621
task_id
310d72f2-4f1e-5287-a262-da6ceef8e680
task_key
default--test--1621
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import