Seisin is the present covenant in a general warranty deed. It guarantees that, at the time of the grant, the seller actually owns the property and has the right to convey it. This is a current assurance about title or possession, not something the seller promises to fix in the future. If the grantor didn’t own the land or couldn’t convey it at the moment of the deed, the grantee could bring a claim immediately for breach of this covenant. The other options are typically future covenants. Quiet enjoyment promises that the grantee’s possession won’t be disturbed by someone with a superior title—this is focused on future interference. Defend (defense of title) and further assurances require actions to be taken after the grant to defend or perfect the title, not present ownership at the moment of conveyance.

In this area, the clock on a professional malpractice claim can be paused when the plaintiff is insane, so they aren’t penalized for their incapacity. But there’s a maximum amount of time that tolling can extend the filing deadline. Here, the rule sets the insane toll cap at ten years, meaning the tolling period due to insanity cannot exceed ten years in total. So even if someone remains insane longer, the period during which the statute is paused stops at ten years. The effect is to prevent indefinite delays while still protecting a claimant who was incapacitated. That’s why this option is the best answer: it reflects the fixed ten-year limit on tolling due to insanity in professional malpractice actions.

The key idea is the mental state that accompanies the restraint. For false imprisonment in the first degree, the defendant must intentionally confine another and know that the confinement is unlawful. That knowledge of illegality is what elevates the offense to the higher level. Merely confining someone or doing so without consent describes the act, but without the awareness that the restraint is unlawful, it does not reach first-degree status. The element about risking serious bodily injury isn’t what defines the first-degree level; the crucial factor is knowing that the confinement is unlawful.

Anti-lapse prevents a gift from failing when the named beneficiary dies before the testator but leaves issue who survive the testator. In that situation, the gift is saved and passes to the beneficiary’s issue by representation (per stirpes). So the statement that the gift goes to the beneficiary’s issue is true because the anti-lapse statute substitutes the beneficiary’s descendants for the deceased beneficiary. This keeps the gift from going to the testator’s heirs by intestacy or from being void; it instead reallocates to the beneficiary’s issue. The gift would only fail to be saved if there were no such issue.