benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A resident of a state was the owner of a large tract of virgin forest. The…

Problem

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

question

A resident of a state was the owner of a large tract of virgin forest. The resident conveyed the tract "to the people of the state in fee simple; provided, however, that if any portion of said tract shall ever be used or developed for any commercial purpose or otherwise converted from its natural state (with exception for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes), then the grantor or his successors in interest may reenter as of the grantor's former estate. "Under state law, conveyances of real property to "the people" of the state are deemed to vest title in the state regarded as a legal entity, and custody over such property resides in an appointed official known as the director of environmental resources. The director granted a logging company the privilege to cut timber on a remote portion of the tract, together with incidental easements of way. The section that the logging company was to clear would be used for the development of a state recreational area. After the privilege was granted, the logging company proceeded to clear the timber, which he later sold for $10,000. When the resident learned that the logging company was cutting the timber and selling it, he notified the director to desist further exploitation of the land. In an ejectment action instituted by the resident against the state to recover the tract, what result would be expected?

choices

  1. The resident would succeed, because the logging company's selling of the timber would entitle the resident to re-enter and terminate the grant to the state.
  2. The resident would succeed, because the logging company's selling of the timber would constitute an automatic termination of the state's fee interest.
  3. The resident would not succeed, because the director approved the clearing of the timber in order to develop the area for recreational purposes.
  4. The resident would not succeed, because the reservation of the resident's right to terminate would be violative of the rule against perpetuities.

subject

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

task_id
3bf77d0f-97f5-551b-93ab-5deb6ad175cd
task_key
all--test--3bf77d0f-97f5-551b-93ab-5deb6ad175cd
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import