Question 1 (50 minutes suggested). Daniel deVil was the owner of a large estate called Dalmatia Manor in the state of Boredom. At his death in 1980 he left the estate by will as follows:

"To my daughter Cruella deVil, but in the event she permits any dogs on the premises prior to 1995, then to her brother Dastard deVil instead."

Cruella took possession of the estate upon her father's death and remains in possession at present. She complied with his wishes, and did not allow any dogs on the property until 1996, when she acquired 15 black-and-white spotted dogs.

Last month (November 1996) a rare Siberian tiger disappeared from the Boredom city zoo. The circumstances of the tiger's escape remain unclear, but for present purposes you may assume that a zookeeper negligently left the tiger's cage unlatched. This particular tiger had been captured in the wild in Siberia in 1990 and immediately sold and shipped to the zoo. After the tiger escaped from the zoo last month, it was "at large" for about two weeks, and there were numerous sightings of it by frightened citizens. Last week it wandered onto Dalmatia Manor, where it was captured by two of Cruella's employees. It remains in a cage on the estate.

When the tiger was captured, it was wearing a neck collar of unusual design. Cruella has exhibited the collar to reporters, and an archeologist at a local university has identified it from published photographs as of ancient Myan workmanship. It contains numerous jade stones set into a gold band, and is estimated to be worth $100,000. Everyone involved concedes that the tiger was not wearing the collar when it escaped from the zoo and that collar's origin is unknown. Incidentally, human blood was found under the tiger's claws, although there have been no reports to the police of any injury caused by a tiger.

Three parties are seeking to get (or keep) possession of the tiger and the collar: the zoo, Cruella (who plans to convert the tiger into a coat and to wear the collar), and Dastard. Cruella's employees concede that any rights they might otherwise have belong to her. Please write a memo discussing all relevant issues and resolving this dispute.

The state of Boredom has enacted a statute that repeals the doctrine of destructibility of continent remainders. However, it continues to follow the common law Rule Against Perpetuities. Please comment on whether these facts have a bearing on the outcome of the dispute.
 

Question 2 (50 minutes suggested). Annie and Betty Wall were sisters. In 1990 they received under their mother's will a warehouse building in the state of Boredom. The will gave them the property "as tenants jointly, and the survivor."

Annie had little interest in the property, and told Betty, "You do with it as you think best." Betty was in the lawn sprinkler business, and immediately began using the building to store her inventory of pipes, valves, and other equipment. She continued this use until her untimely demise, as described below. In late 1995 she was contacted by a local manufacturer named Sam Sacrete, who needed a place to store sacks of dry mortar that he produced. Betty entered into a written agreement with Sam, which read as follows:

Betty Wall hereby agrees to allow Sam Sacrete to use up to 2,000 square feet in Wall's warehouse in the State of Boredom for the storage of sacks. Sam will pay rent of $500 per month. Wall may adjust the location of the 2,000 square feet of space within the warehouse at any time.

Last week Betty perished in an unfortunate encounter with a forklift in the warehouse. Betty was intestate and her administrator and sole heir is her son Bob. Annie has consulted you and raised three questions. First, who owns the warehouse building? Second, does Betty have any valid claim for money against Bob on account of the activities at the warehouse? Third, does Betty have any obligation to allow Sam to continue using the warehouse? Please answer these questions, discussing all relevant issues.