A Joint Tenant With Rights Of Survivorship

Violet’s case is similar to the case Re Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 in which the court considered the creditor a partner of the business concerned given that the creditor (Delhasse) had the right to control the property, had all the rights a dormant business partner would be expected to have, and rights to share profits and liability to share in losses.

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

The marriage between the two parties involved (Richard S. Dougall and Myrna R. Dougall) was dissolved in 2008 with the dissolution decree ordering Richard to pay Myrna $750 per month in spousal maintenance. Each of the two parties was also awarded one half interest in two parcels of property. Richard was ordered by the court to obtain appraisals and pay a fair share of the equity (as designated by the court’s property division assessment) to Myrna. In 2011, the court entered two judgments against Richard for failing to comply with obligations set down in the court order. A $5,000 judgment represented Myrna’s interest in one of the properties. The second judgment for $4,745 represented spousal maintenance arrearages. The court also reduced Richard’s spousal maintenance obligation to $500 per month effective August 2011.

1) the husband owned less than $4,000 of assets at the time he transferred the property into tenancy by the entirety,

The mortgage lender’s claim to the property has priority according to both chapters. However, it looks like chapter 13 discusses debt workout plans for the borrower. Which in turn may cause delays to foreclosure. In turn, increasing costs for the lender and possibly causing the property value to decrease due to neglect.

"[b]uyer's sole [506] remedy in law or at equity in the event of Trustee's default shall be a refund of the deposit hereby received and, upon the delivery of the deposit refund, this agreement, and the sale contemplated by this Memorandum of Sale shall be null and void." Id. Sayres v. Wheatland Group,

According to Dalton Conley, cohabitation is the “living together in an intimate relationship without formal, legal, or religious sanctioning”(Conley 458). From this, one can assume that cohabitation happens primarily between two people that are in a relationship. When looking at cohabitation within the United States, it has become more evident that it is slowly increasing in popularity. During the early ages, cohabitation was considered very scandalous and was frowned upon, but as the years progress, more and more couples start living together. Whether it is to experience the lifestyle they would have living together as if they were married or living together in order to save money, more and more people are living with their significant other.

6.4 Purchase of Defaulting Partner’s Interest. If a Partner defaults as defined in Paragraph 7 below, the non-defaulting Partner may purchase the defaulting Partner’s interest in the Partnership.

In our opinion, if the claim has been filed, Ocwen should not have foreclosed (and it is likely the total debt would have been paid in full). As a result, it opened the Trust up to ownership of the property, code violation expenses and all

This case arises out of a foreclosure proceeding initiated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by substitute trustees Thomas P. Dore, Mark S. Devan, Gerard F. Miles, Jr., Shannon Menapace, and Erin Gloth (collectively, the “Substitute Trustees”), appellees. In the foreclosure proceedings, the Substitute Trustees filed an order to docket a foreclosure with respect to real property located at 3517 Woodstock Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21213 (“the Property”) owned by mortgagor Celeste Wenegieme (“Wenegieme”), appellant.

As a court judge, I would rule that the Interstate Bank of Bastrop’s judgment lien has first priority because the judgment lien was recorded prior to Red River’s mortgage lien. In general, the priority of a judgment lien is typically determined by the recording dates, which concludes which lien gets paid first. For this reason, Red River Thrift and Loan Co. and Interstate Bank of Bastrop have sensible rights to complain for priority in order to enforce Phil Dunfee’s debt. In other words, if Red River received first priority and the foreclosure sale continued, then Interstate Bank of Bastrop would never get paid. As a result, Interstate would consider this unreasonable, especially since the judgment lien was filed before Red River had filed their note and mortgage with Dunfee. In brief, Interstate Bank of Bastrop has priority over Red River because of the series in which the liens and mortgages were recorded.

Foreclosure has become an outbreak affecting the entire United States of America. Realtytrac just reported in the month of April 2011 that one in every 593 housing units received a foreclosure filing. (N1) That statistic is for just one month! Some states such as Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan and Nevada continue to be plagued with an influx of homes falling victim to foreclosure or some other form of default. Each home that is a casualty to a foreclosure, short sale or even bankruptcy was collateral for the lender holding the promissory note. The consequences tend to come at a cost for the lender selling the property but a deal for the buying investor. The costs incurred and the losses experienced by the

Martin is a joint tenant with a right of survivorship with his friends Peter, John, and Thomas. All of them have passed away, and Martin has not been back to the property in more than 20 years. Consequently, Peter indicated in his will that he was leaving his interest in the property to his son Andrew. Andrew has taken a personal loan out and used his part of the interest in the property as collateral. The lender has initiated a legal action to foreclose on the property. Unfortunately, this type of property co-ownership is known as joint tenancy with rights of survivorship and the portion of the interest that is now owned by Andrew, in fact, can be attached by creditors. Andrew’s father, Peter, left his share of

This essay will consider the rights and remedies of both parties in a mortgage agreement where there has been default of payment. Furthermore, it will be concluded by taking a stand on whether further restriction needs to be placed on the right of he mortgagee.

Cohabitation is defined as a man and woman living in the same household and having sexual relations while not being married. There is relatively little data on health outcomes for people who have cohabitated, although there is some evidence that cohabitating couples have lower incomes (15% of cohabitating men are jobless while 8% of married men are jobless) and there may be negative academic effects for children of cohabitating mothers (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation rates are highest among those who have never married with just over a quarter of people surveyed reporting cohabitation before their first marriage (Jay, 2012). Of these, half reported that they expected their cohabitation to end in marriage; about one quarter to one third of cohabitations end either in marriage or dissolution of the relationship within 3 years (Jay, 2012). Further, cohabitation rates are highest for those who have not completed college, accounting for all but 12% of men and women reporting that they are living with their partners (Jay, 2012). Cohabitation and marriage are two significant decisions college students will make, but very little is known about what college students think about living together before marriage. Given the nearly 50% divorce rate in the United States (Jay, 2012), understanding how young adults view cohabitation as on option for life relationships needs further investigation.