Case Study: Abe V. Whiteacre

Walter Calvin White (defendant) had а issue with William Tipton. Defendant knew that he's going to meet the Tipton, he carried a gun. When they had a disagreement, White pulled out his gun, after that Tipton started to run away on his motocycle. Defendant made a shot in order to harm Tipton, but actually hit Ralph Edward Davis (plaintiff) in the stomach. Defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison. The Circuit Court awarded Davis a $50,000. White then filed for bankruptcy, after that, Davis went to the Court for nondischargeability in bankruptcy.

A court will likely find Wayne Carter to be the legal owner of the Stanton farm in Colin County, in spite of having not recorded with the deed with the county, because George Pearson, the subsequent purchaser had a duty to inquire and such an inquiry would have yielded notice that Carter had deed to the farm. Under Texas law,

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.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

Specifically, the court relied on Gorte v Dept of Transp, 202 Mich App 161, 164; 507 NW2d 797, 799 (1993). In Gorte, the plaintiff filed a complaint for adverse possession against the state on March 3, 1988 claiming that he held title to land via adverse possession from the state. Id. at 164. MCL 600.5821 was amended to preclude adverse possession claims against the state and became effective on March 1, 1988, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Id. The trial court held that since 1966, plaintiff and his predecessors had adversely possessed the disputed acreage and that the amendment to MCL 600.5821 did not bar plaintiff’s adverse possession claim because he had a vested property right before March 1, 1988. Id. In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals

In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

Our client Ms. Heather Palmer (“Ms. Palmer”) came to our office seeking advice from us on whether Mr. Jonah Wells (“Mr. Wells”) has any legal rights to any portion of Whiteacre under Florida’s adverse possession doctrine. She also would like to know whether she is within her legal rights to compel Mr. Wells to leave

Martin had been a blundering law enforcement officer. He chose to resign after numerous years as a deputy in a little North Carolina town and as a criminologist in Raleigh. Martin possesses an interest property in the mountain district of North Carolina and additionally a second home in the shore of North Carolina (Property Case Study). He conveyed three properties issues to me to advise him on. As Martin sister in Christ and his lawful counsel, I must exhort him that there are laws, guidelines and regulations that identify with his property circumstance he is confronting. Here is my evaluation of Martin’s three properties (Mountain, Coastal, and Personal Property).

| 21 |LO 4 |Basis for inherited property: community property vs common law | |Unchanged | 21 |

Hopefully I’ve informed you and provided ideas for research in the land records for your state-land state of interest. Every single state-land state is different based on its own history, survey systems and methods of distributing the land. So you will have to do some investigating to educate yourself. Then go find the records.

Both buyer and seller were willing to accept this monetary agreement and nobody’s rights were infringed on. Thus, if any step in the history of transfers behind an object is unjust, no owner has justly acquired

Yes. The third party possessor has a superior claim to the property than the subsequent purchaser in spite of the fact that the possessor has not recorded his deed to the property. The subsequent purchaser had sufficient constructive notice of the third party possessor’s after observing the possessor’s presence on the land. The subsequent purchaser’s constructive notice effectively eliminates his ability to evoke the bona fide purchaser affirmative defense at trail.

“If you continue to purchase of them it will produce war among the different tribes and at last I do not know what will be the consequence to the white people”. He also explains to the Whiteman that, those that did sell did not own it. It was me. These tribe set up claim, but the tribes with me will not agree with their claim. If the land is not restored to us you will see when we return to our homes how it will be settled.’ We shall have a great counsel, at which all the tribes will be present when we shall show to those who sold that they had no right to the claim that they set up: and we will see what will be done to those chief that

had sold only the right to use the land, not the land itself. They did

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.