How long should a child with sickle cell anemia receive prophylactic penicillin?

A man owned a 50-acre lot. He had purchased 40 of those acres from his uncle and had acquired title to an adjacent 10-acre strip from an absent neighbor by adverse possession. The man entered into a land sale contract to convey the 50 acres to a friend. The contract included all necessary details as to the property, the parties, and the transaction, but was silent as to the nature of title that the man would convey to the friend. At the time of closing, the friend paid the purchase price and accepted the deed conveyed by the man for the 50-acre lot. Three months later, the neighbor came back to the area and brought an action in ejectment against the friend for the ten acres. The friend now sues the man. Which of the following statements most accurately describes the friend’s rights?

A landowner inherited a parcel of land, free of encumbrances, and promptly recorded his deed. The landowner took out a $100,000 mortgage on the land with a bank to pay for improvements to the property. The instrument was properly recorded. The landowner regularly made the scheduled payments on the mortgage. Subsequently, the landowner decided to further improve the property and took out another mortgage with a financing company for $50,000. The instrument was properly recorded. The landowner then sold the land to a buyer subject to both mortgages. The buyer procured another loan of $100,000 secured by a mortgage on the land from a lender. The lender knew about the bank’s mortgage, but the buyer did not inform her of the financing company’s mortgage. The lender lent the money to the buyer on the understanding that the buyer would use the money to pay off the bank’s mortgage, placing the lender in first priority. The buyer promptly paid off the bank but made no further payments to the financing company. The financing company initiated steps to foreclose on the land. The lender brings an appropriate action seeking to have her rights declared superior to those of the financing company.  The state in which the land is located has the following statute: “Any conveyance of an estate in land, other than a lease for less than one year, shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser whose conveyance is first recorded.” If the court rules in the lender’s favor, what is the likely reason?

The owner of a collection of old anvils lent it to the local museum and hired professional movers to transport the anvils to the second floor of the museum, where they would be displayed. The movers used a rope and pulley apparatus to lift the anvils on the outside of the building to a second-story window. While one of the largest anvils was being lifted, it slipped and fell, crashing to the ground. However, the anvil was not even dented. If the owner brings a negligence action against the movers for allowing the antique anvil to fall, what can the owner recover?

A woman entered into a written contract to sell her office building to an investor. A week before the date set for closing, the investor decided to buy a hotel in a neighboring town instead. The investor notified the woman that he would not be going through with the closing. The woman sued the investor for specific performance. Which fact, if true, would likely cause the court to rule in the investor’s favor?

A farmer purchased several acres of land for grazing his sheep. Because of the terrain, the land was not useful for much else and was relatively inexpensive. Shortly thereafter, an adjacent neighbor accidentally discovered gold on the property and began seeking the necessary permits to begin mining. As soon as word got out, real estate values in the area soared. Rather than sell his land for a profit, the farmer decided to try to open a mine on his property. To finance the mining project, the farmer borrowed $100,000 from the bank secured by a mortgage on his land. The bank promptly recorded the mortgage. A week later, the farmer went to a friend asking her to invest in the mining project. The friend loaned the farmer an additional $50,000 in exchange for a mortgage on the property. The friend knew of the bank’s mortgage, and the friend promptly recorded her mortgage. A few weeks after that, the farmer went back to the bank and, after notifying them of the friend’s mortgage, obtained another advance of $25,000 from the bank, increasing the amount of the bank’s mortgage from $100,000 to $125,000. The bank promptly recorded the change. After spending most of the funds on engineers, surveys, and construction equipment, it was determined that the gold strike was limited to a very small portion of the neighbor’s land. No gold was found on the farmer’s land or any of the neighboring parcels. Land values plummeted. The farmer stopped making the mortgage payments to the friend but continued to make payments to the bank. The friend brought a foreclosure action against the farmer and included the bank as a party. The proceeds at the foreclosure sale were just $60,000 after attorneys’ fees and court costs. How should the proceeds be divided?

To impress his new girlfriend, a man executed and delivered to the girlfriend a warranty deed to a vacant cabin. The girlfriend promptly and properly recorded her deed. A month later, the girlfriend moved into the cabin and has occupied the property since. At the time of the conveyance to the girlfriend, the man did not actually own the cabin. His mother was the record title holder, but she had always told the man the cabin would one day be his. Later, the mother died, and her will devised the cabin to the man. Shortly thereafter, the man lost his job and needed money, so he sold the cabin for its full value to a neighbor by warranty deed. The neighbor promptly and properly recorded but did not conduct a title search before accepting the deed. Both the girlfriend and the neighbor now claim ownership of the cabin. The jurisdiction in which the cabin is located has the following statute: “No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice unless the conveyance is recorded.” Who has title to the cabin?

To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk. The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered permanent brain damage. If the boy’s parents file suit on the boy’s behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?

A 14-year-old was the youngest licensed pilot in the state. On a foggy day when pilots were being advised to fly only if necessary, the pilot took his plane out so that he could fly low over the football field where his friends were practicing. When he attempted to land on his return to the airport, he ran off the runway due to the fog and damaged an executive’s airplane, which was in the parking area. If the executive sues the pilot for damage to his airplane and prevails, what is the likely reason?

A dancer rented a small building for her dance school and subleased some of the building space to two other tenants. The dancer paid $5,000 per month to the owner and charged her subtenants $1,000 per month each. After the dancer had been in the building for five years, the owner called her on the phone with a proposal to purchase the building. The dancer and the owner agreed on the call that the dancer would purchase the building for a price of $300,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $5,000 over a five-year period. It was further agreed that when the dancer had paid $180,000 of the total price, the owner would deliver the deed to the dancer. One month later, the dancer spent $5,000 cleaning the mirrors and decorating the studio and dressing rooms in her dance school. Over the next three years, the dancer hired another dance teacher and had him hold classes in one of the spaces formerly occupied by one of the subtenants. She also raised the monthly rent she charged the other subtenant to $1,500. Three years after the agreement with the owner, the dancer demanded that the owner convey the building by delivery of a deed. The owner refused, denying that he had entered into any agreement with the dancer concerning the purchase of the property. The dancer brings an action for specific performance against the owner. If the owner prevails, what is the likely reason?