CA Bar Exam 練習答案: Real Property (July 2005)

Bar Review CourseのEssay答案は完璧すぎ＆長すぎて参考にならないという方向けに、過去に書きためた答案を公開していきます。公開するのは、私が実際に1時間計って解いた答案を、ギリギリ合格ラインまたは合格ライン少し上になるように手直ししたものです。手直しにあたっては、某Bar Review Courseの採点表を参照して、自己採点しています。

問題文

July 2005 Question 2
https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/July%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf

Developer acquired a large tract of undeveloped land, subdivided the tract into ten lots, and advertised the lots for sale as “Secure, Gated Luxury Home Sites.” Developer then entered into a ten-year, written contract with Ace Security, Inc. (“ASI”) to provide security for the subdivision in return for an annual fee of $6,000.

Developer sold the first lot to Cora and quickly sold the remaining nine. Developer had inserted the following clause in each deed:

Purchaser(s) hereby covenant and agree on their own behalf and on behalf of their heirs, successors, and assigns to pay an annual fee of $600 for 10 years to Ace Security, Inc. for the maintenance of security within the subdivision.

Developer promptly and properly recorded all ten deeds.

One year later, ASI assigned all its rights and obligations under the security contract with Developer to Modern Protection, Inc. (“MPI”), another security service. About the same time, Cora’s next-door neighbor, Seller, sold the property to Buyer. Seller’s deed to Buyer did not contain the above-quoted clause. Buyer steadfastly refuses to pay any fee to MPI.

MPI threatens to suspend its security services to the entire subdivision unless it receives assurance that it will be paid the full $6,000 each year for the balance of the contract. Cora wants to ensure that she will not be required to pay more than $600 a year.

On what theories might Cora reasonably sue Buyer for his refusal to pay the annual $600 fee to MPI, what defenses might Buyer reasonably assert, and what is the likely outcome on each of Cora’s theories and Buyer’s defenses? Discuss.

答案