Vern Shoepke bought a two-story home in of Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did n

Question

Vern Shoepke bought a two-story home in of Roche, Maine. The

warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be

included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a

public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course.

(Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using

Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the

park and along Shoepke’s property as part of a two-mile

public trail system. The deed allowed Roche citizens the

right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot

beside Wayakichi Creek.

Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the

walking path behind Shoepke’s property over his yard to the

adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the

teenagers, demanding that they not throw objects over his

yard.

Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased

the second floor out to Lauren Slater for nine months. (The

lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke’s consent would

be required to sublease the second floor.) After three

months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local

artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months,

Indalecio’s use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in

Shoepke’s home. Using the information presented in the

chapter, answer the following questions.

1. What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walk

across Shoepke’s land on the trail?

2. What covenants would most courts infer were included in

the warranty deed that Shoepke received when he bought the

home?

3. Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the

damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Explain.

4. Suppose that Slater—to offset her liability for the

carpet damage caused by Indalecio—files a counterclaim

against Shoepke for breach of the covenant of quiet

enjoyment. Could the fact that teenagers continually throw

Frisbees over Shoepke’s yard outside the second-floor

windows arguably be a breach of the covenant of quiet

enjoyment? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

1) The legal term is Right of way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_way

2) Covenants that are INFERRED to be included in the sale deed to Shoepke would be

3) Yes Shoepke can hold Slater responsible as, He had lent it to Slater and it was Slater’s responsibility to ensure that the part of the property leased to him is maintained in pristine condition and if not, the rightful penalty to be paid. Since Slater sublet the property he would need to get the damage undone of collect the penalty from his tenant.

4) No, the covenant of quite enjoyment is not breached as if it was so uncomfortable for Slater then he should have vacated the property as soon as rhe realized that it was not a quite environment to live. Why is he claiming this as a counterclaim now that he has been charged of damaging the carpet.

Also in that case Indalecio could also put a counterclaim on Slater for breach of covenant of quite environment.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse V
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.