SAMPLE QUESTION 1:
You are a junior associate at a mid-sized law firm in a large city. One evening, just as you are preparing to leave the office, your phone rings. A partner is on the other end of the line. She says that a client of hers will be coming into the office tomorrow morning. The client appears to be engaged in some kind of property dispute with a number of his neighbors and tenants. Unfortunately, the partner is going to be in court tomorrow morning and will be unable to meet with the client. However, she would like you to meet with the client and find out the nature of the dispute. She would also like you to draft a short memo for her, outlining any legal claims that the client could possibly have against other parties or that the other parties could probably bring against him, along with your preliminary assessment of the likelihood of success of any of these claims.
The next morning, you meet with the client and find out the following information:
The client, James Callahan, owns a house set in a suburban subdivision. He lives on the first two floors of the house and rents the third and fourth floors to tenants. The south portion of his lot borders on Main Street. To the west of his lot lies property owned by his neighbor Phillip Worly; to the east, lies property owned by his neighbor Cheryl Evans; and behind and to the north lies property owned by his neighbor Sandra Norton.
The client, Callahan, is an accomplished sculptor, specializing in large scale works made of wood and metal. He uses the first floor of the house as a studio. He fashions many of the pieces for his sculptures in his studio, using various types of woodworking and metalworking machinery. The machinery can sometimes be noisy. However, Callahan is careful to limit operation of the machinery to only a few hours every day, almost always during daylight hours. Because the sculptures are so large, he assembles many of them in his backyard. Accordingly, his backyard is often littered with pieces of works in various stages of assembly.
Callahan’s neighbor to the west, Phillip Worly, has complained to Callahan on a number of occasions about the noise from Callahan’s studio and backyard. Worly is a psychiatrist and works out of an office in his home. He often sees patients during the day, and has done so for many years before Callahan moved next door. He has noticed that, during his sessions with his patients, they have occasionally been startled and distracted by the noise coming from Callahan’s studio and backyard, making it difficult for them to concentrate. He is convinced that this is making it more difficult for him to help his patients. Worly is increasingly becoming more and more upset with the situation, and has demanded that Callahan reduce the noise (or at least install soundproofing). Callahan indicated that he cannot keep down the noise and is unwilling to pay the substantial expense of soundproofing.
Relations between Callahan and his neighbor to the east have been rather more cordial, at least until recently. When Callahan first considered purchasing the property in 1998, he had the property resurveyed and noticed that the paved driveway abutting the eastern side of his house and providing access to his backyard actually overlapped onto his eastern neighbor’s, Cheryl Evans’s, property by 3 feet. If the driveway were narrowed so as to rest only on his land, Callahan would not be able to drive a truck large enough to enable him to easily move his sculptures from his backyard to the street and then to the galleries. Moreover, because the house is even closer to the lot line on the western side, it would be impossible to construct an adequate driveway on the other side of the building (and there is no access to the north). When Callahan brought this to the attention of Evans back in 1998, she recalled that the driveway had been paved by former owners sometime in 1991, though it was used prior to that time as a rough, dirt driveway of uncertain width. Moreover, she was unaware that it overlapped onto her land. When Callahan offered to purchase a right of way to use the strip of land, Evans brushed the offer aside and said that she would be happy to permit Callahan to continue to use the property as long as he wanted. As a result of this conversation, Callahan proceeded to purchase the property and moved in the equipment he needed for his work.
Several months ago, however, relations between Evans and Callahan began to sour. When asked why relations began to sour, Callahan would not explain, saying only that it was “personal”. In any event, as a result of the deterioration of the relationship between Evans and Callahan, Evans has indicated that she is withdrawing her earlier permission to use the strip of property on which the driveway overlaps. Callahan is very concerned, because without that strip of land, the driveway will be too narrow and he will be prevented from using it to move his heavy sculptures from his backyard. (You may be interested to know that the jurisdiction has a 10-year period for claims of adverse possession).
Callahan is also in the midst of a dispute with his neighbor to the north, Sandra Norton. Norton’s property rests uphill from Callahan’s property. A retaining wall at the edge of Callahan’s property provides support to the land uphill from his backyard. When Callahan purchased the property, a title search revealed that the prior owners of Callahan’s and Norton’s properties had entered into a single covenant, which contained the following language: “The owner [of Callahan’s property] hereby covenants and agrees to construct and maintain a retaining wall on the northernmost edge of said property, sufficient to support any buildings on the adjacent land. This covenant is intended to bind, and inure to the benefit of, future owners of the respective properties.” Last month, Norton began to construct a swimming pool on the southern edge of her property. During the construction of the swimming pool, Callahan noticed that the retaining wall had begun to show signs of stress, which he attributed to the additional load caused by the swimming pool. Callahan demanded that Norton stop construction and pay to reinforce the wall. Norton has refused, arguing that Callahan is responsible for maintaining the wall.
To add to Callahan’s list of miseries, two weeks ago Callahan received a letter from the homeowner’s association for his residential subdivision. The letter indicated that the association had received a complaint from an unnamed homeowner (Callahan suspects Phillip Worly, his neighbor to the west) about the sculptures in his backyard. The association’s letter pointed to a restriction in the master plan for the subdivision, which requires homeowners to “adequately maintain the appearance” of their front and backyards. The association’s letter also indicated that it had been informed (again Callahan suspected Worly) that Callahan had rented two of the floors of his house to tenants. The association directed Callahan’s attention to a provision in the master plan that provided that “in order to maintain the stability and high-class nature of the subdivision, no owner of the land subject to this master plan shall rent all or part of the property to any tenant without the written consent of the homeowner’s association.” The association demanded that Callahan abide by these restrictions. According to Callahan, his particular deed does not mention any of the restrictions in the master plan (nor do any other of the deeds in his chain of title), although he has since found out that nearly all of the other lots in the subdivision reference the master plan.
Draft a memo to the partner identifying the various claims that Callahan may be able to assert against any of the individuals mentioned above, as well as any claims that Callahan may have to defend against from these individuals. Also make an initial assessment of the likelihood that any of these claims might be successful. If there is any additional specific information that you will need in order to make your assessment, identify that information in your analysis and indicate how it would affect this analysis. (You can assume that the partner will already be familiar with the above facts, after reading your detailed notes of the interview, so there is no need to include a separate section summarizing the above facts).