A Case Summary: Wells V. Wells

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

Like the defendant in Moore, Herrera is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law in this action, because she could not have known or realized that the rock towers on her property would pose an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to Maria. Herrera’s private property is located in a remote location in Arizona where she allows adults to view her land art by appointment only. It is reasonably understandable that Herrera does not like uninvited or unwanted individuals on her property at anytime. Moreover, since the land art was for adults only to view, she never allowed children on her property to view her land art. As a result, no injuries were ever reported from the adults who visited and viewed her land art.

In the case of the State v. Wells, Defendant Paul Ellis Wells was charged with a DUI in California for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana and causing serious bodily injury to three other victims. At first glance, this case seems obvious that the defendant’s negligence at the wheel was caused by him being intoxicated. Further research shows that the defendant was diagnosed by a doctor as being prediabetic. In my opinion, the actus reus elements of the crime of DUI would be that the defendant did test positive for marijuana in a blood test conducted which in any state would be considered a DUI because it is obviously a crime to operate a motor vehicle under any substance that can alter your mind. On the other hand,

Coal mining is not new to the Appalachian region. Miners have been working the rich coal fields of Appalachia for generations.14, 17 The first coal mines in these states were small, local owned operations.17 This all changed, however, in the late 19th century when “agents from land companies had swept through the region buying up mineral rights, sometimes for as little as fifty cents per acre, separating the use of the surface (and tax liability) from the natural resources that might be below.”17 In legal terms, and in very fine print, these “broad form deeds often signed over the rights to ‘dump, store, and leave upon such land any and

Comstock v. Finn, 56 P.2d 957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). The period between 1955 and 1963, the plaintiffs paid rent to remain on the property. Tenants cannot argue a landlord’s title to said property while under his lease for the purpose of adverse possession. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 54 P.2d 73, 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). Additionally taxes on the property were assessed to Berkley between 1961 and 1962 to which he paid. Plaintiffs could not produce proof that the monies given to Berkley were for tax payments and not rent payments. Lastly adverse possession as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 325 must be continuous and uninterrupted for a minimum of a five year period. Plaintiff lost interest in the property in 1958 when interest in the property when Moheno received the trustee’s deed. Plaintiff was awarded Berkey’s grant deed in 1962. Thus the plaintiff fell short of the five year requirement as stated

The riparian buffer discussed in the fact pattern describe leaving a 50-foot buffer zone of natural land between both sides of all streams. The plaintiff, Roberta Smith, owns a 100-acre farm which has a stream flowing through it. Under the new riparian buffer regulation four of her 100 acres will be lost because the regulation will prevent her from growing any crops on this four-acre plot of land. The plaintiff argues that a regulatory taking has occurred and that she is entitled to compensation for her lost land. It is important to understand the distinction between eminent domain and a regulatory taking before going further. In Kelo and Village of Euclid eminent domain refers to situations where the government explicitly condemns private land for public use and justify the taking under the 5th

The particular LSU Law Fairly sweet offers one of several very long even now inter-school hard work tournaments in the property. The particular contention is termed inside virtue of the tardily prof of the Law Contact, Ira S. Chemist. The particular Ira. S. Chemist Trials Contention will be artless to all or any second-and third-year regulation learners and members create tired through to decorate at all of the prime litigators in the earth and

Some states require only a “preponderance of evidence” – or in other words, that the property is “more likely than not” connected to illegal activity – a far stretch from the innocent until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” benchmark necessary for criminal convictions.

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.

A buyer’s efforts may not be thwarted if the buyer failed in their due diligence and if the physical inspection of a property failed to find a discoverable material fact. Daly v. Kochanowicz, 67 A.D.3d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). In Daly, the buyer’s inspector discovered evidence of water intrusion on the property and recommended that the buyer “talk to neighbors and contact knowledgeable local officials” regarding the defect. Daly v. Kochanowicz, 67 A.D.3d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). The buyer failed to perform due diligence as required to investigate the possibility of water intrusion affecting the property, consequently the seller did not thwart the buyer’s efforts because the buyer unilaterally failed to perform their duties under the doctrine

There are 3 important identifications to easement descriptions: description and location of the dominant parcel, description and location of the servient parcel, and description and location of the easement itself. The original easement has ownership of the land under the abandoned roads, power lines, and railroads.

2. If new settler claimed the rights to Californios land, the two had to fight it out in court.

Several issues can occur when purchasing land. For example, Alfie is concerned with fixtures and chattels. Roxie’s dilemma is concerned with conveyancing process and proprietary estoppel. Fixtures and chattels are difficult to determine because there opposing opinions which contradict one another. Nevertheless, the “degree and object of annexation” test can help determine the status of an item. This essay will evaluate the items to see whether they are fixtures or chattels whilst, demonstrating how the burden of proof can show otherwise. In relation to Roxie, this essay will demonstrate the problems that can occur during the conveyancing process and how proprietary estoppel can be used to protect an individual’s interests.