INTESAR S. - ESSAY SUBMISSION #1 ================================= Date: May 14, 2026 (10:49 AM EDT) Subject: Real Property Mode: Upload (student's own prompt) Band: 3/6 - Below passing expectations RAW SCORING DATA ---------------- Raw Score: 43.4% Calibrated Score: 48.4% Confidence: 0.555 Component Scores (raw / display): Issue Spotting: 83.0% / 83.0% Fact Usage: 53.6% / 37.5% Rule Statement: 27.0% / 27.0% Analysis: 21.0% / 14.7% Conclusion: 40.4% / 40.4% Note: Display scores for facts/analysis are scaled down because the quality channel assessed application depth as below the "adequate" threshold. ================================================================================ STUDENT'S ESSAY ================================================================================ Joint tenancy with Right of Survivorship A Joint tenancy with Right of Survivorship requires the four unities time, title, interest and possession, and cannot be willed. The only way to sever a JTWROS is to transfer interest while alive. If interest is not transferred during lifetime then the interest will be absorbed by the remaining survivors. Should the tenancy become severed the, that severed interest will be treated as a tenant in common amongst the JTWROS holders. Here, in 2022, Mother deeded to her three children, Alonzo, Barbara, and Carla as Joint tenants with right of survivorship, not as tenants in common. Therefore, the tenancy created cannot be willed and the tenancy is absorbed by the remaining holders if one of the holders should pass. However, the tenancy can be severed by transferring their interest creating a tenant in common but will not sever the JTWRS between the remaining tenants. Therefore, a proper JTWRS is created between the three children by the mother. 1. Two-year lease between Carla and Tenant a. Whether Carla was entitled to receive 12 months of unpaid rent from the tenant at the end of the lease term. Unpaid Rent Unpaid rent will be enforced on a tenant who was prematurely vacated a rental property to a reasonable extent. The landlord is required to mitigate his damages by reletting the premises. If the landlord fails to mitigate damages, the landlord will not be able to receive damages for the remainder of the lease agreement. Here, the two-year lease term for a $1200 monthly payment was created between Carla and the tenant. The two remaining Tenancy holders were not involved in the creation of the lease agreement, thus, once Carla passes the lease agreement would terminate. Carla will not be entitled to the 12 month's of unpaid rent from the tenant because Carla had the opportunity to re-rent the premises for the equal amount on three different occasions. Therefore, Carla failed to mitigate her damages, Carla would only be entitled to a reasonable extent being the weeks to find a new tenant not months. In conclusion, Carla will be entitled to a much smaller amount that is reasonable, however is not entitled to receive the 12 months of unpaid rent from the tenant at the end of the lease term because she failed to mitigate her damages by renting the property to the potential tenants. b. Whether Alonzo and Barbara were entitled to a share of the rental income payable to Carla under the lease agreement with the Tenant Joint tenants with rights of survivorship holding a property are entitled to equal shares amongst each other to use the property for their own enjoyment and to obtain payment should property create an income. Here, Alonzo and Barbara are entitled to a share of the rental income that is payable to Carla under the lease because the tenancy allows for the holders to receive equal shares of any and all to do with the property. An income such as this one, would make not only Carla entitled to payment but the remaining tenancy holders as well. In conclusion Alonzo and Barbara were entitled to a share of the rental income that was payable to Carla under the Lease agreement with the tenant because the tenants share equal proceeds from the rental property. 2. Whether Alonzo and Barbara are entitled to any of the house's fair rental value from Carla during the time of her possession of the house after the tenants' two-year lease expired Joint Tenants with right of survivorship who occupy the property, are not required to pay fair rental value to the remaining joint tenants as they are equally permitted to enter the property and occupy fairly. If an ouster should occur, is when the property would not be able to be used by the ousted tenant. Here, Alonzo and Barbara, after Carla moved into the house on December 31, 2024, she is not required to pay the fair rental value of $1,500 per month because she occupied the property as Alonzo and Barbara are permitted to occupy the property. An ouster has not occurred per the facts, therefore, all tenants are able to occupy the property equally and fairly without paying either tenants. Therefore, Alonzo and Barbara are not entitled to the house's fair rental value during Carla's possession. 3. What effect, if any, did Carla's leasing the house to the tenant have on the ownership interests in the house following her death A JTWRS does not sever by leasing a property to a tenant, the ownership interests remain the same. The only way to sever is by transferring their interest during their lifetime not in their will after death. Here, following the death of Carla, she attempted to devise her interest in the house to her son. Under a JTWRS, it cannot be willed and thus, her interest is absorbed by Alonzo and Barbara. Furthermore, the leasing of the property to the tenant did not sever the relationship between the three children and did not create any effect following her death. Therefore, Carla's interest is absorbed by the remaining JTWRS children, Alonzo and Barbara. ================================================================================ SHEP FEEDBACK ================================================================================ OVERALL FEEDBACK: Your essay demonstrates a basic understanding of property law concepts, but it falls short of a passing grade because your analysis is largely conclusory and lacks the necessary doctrinal precision. You frequently identify the correct issues but fail to provide the governing legal rules or the step-by-step application of those rules to the facts provided. To move into a higher band, you must adopt a more rigorous IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) structure. Specifically, you need to stop making broad assertions and start grounding your arguments in the specific elements of the law. For every issue, you must state the rule clearly, identify the relevant facts from the prompt that trigger that rule, and explain *why* those facts satisfy or fail the legal standard. Your current approach relies too heavily on general intuition rather than precise legal application. Focus on defining the elements of each doctrine first, then systematically apply each element to the facts. ISSUE-LEVEL FEEDBACK: 1. Landlord's Duty to Mitigate Your analysis of the duty to mitigate is functional but lacks the necessary depth to reach a higher band. You correctly identified the duty, but your application is conclusory. To improve, you must explicitly compare the landlord's actual efforts against the standard of "reasonable diligence." For example, instead of simply stating the landlord failed to mitigate, you should detail specific facts -- such as whether the landlord advertised the property, used a broker, or rejected qualified applicants -- and explain why those specific actions (or inactions) fell short of the reasonable standard required by law. 2. Co-tenant's Duty to Account for Rent You failed to state the correct legal rule regarding a co-tenant's duty to account for rents received from third parties. You relied on a vague assertion about "equal shares" rather than the specific rule that a co-tenant in possession who collects rent from a third party must account to the other co-tenants for their share of the net profits. To improve, you must state the rule clearly and then apply it by calculating the specific share owed based on the ownership interests, rather than making a general statement about the nature of the tenancy. 3. Co-tenant Possession and Ouster Your analysis of ouster is insufficient because you failed to define the legal standard. Ouster occurs when a co-tenant in possession denies another co-tenant the right to enter or use the property. You must state this rule and then analyze the facts to see if any conduct by the parties constituted a denial of access. Simply stating that "an ouster has not occurred" is a conclusion without the necessary supporting analysis of the parties' interactions or the physical state of the property. 4. Severance of Joint Tenancy by Lease This is a critical doctrinal error. You failed to address the specific legal question of whether a lease constitutes a severance of a joint tenancy. In many jurisdictions, a lease is considered a temporary transfer of a possessory interest that does not necessarily sever the joint tenancy, or it may only result in a partial severance. You must state the rule regarding whether a lease constitutes a "transfer of title" sufficient to destroy the four unities. Your failure to reach a conclusion on this issue leaves a significant gap in your analysis of the ownership interests.