Case Study : Mountain Property Co Ownership

This is exactly what I thought. Since our house was so large, we couldn’t pay rent for a couple of months. Eventually, our lawyer, Richard, came to our residence and told us we are getting out house taken away from us, assuming that was what “foreclosed upon” ment, and the way mother’s face looked like crinkled up tin foil. The next few months went by slowly, we packed our clothes and our closest belongings and set out on foot. Eventually, we made a nice little house-hut and began growing our own food.

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.

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.

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.

In 1830 the Blow family and I moved from Florence, Alabama to St. Louis, Missouri where we opened up a Hotel. On June 23, 1832 Peter Blow, who was my first owner, died at the age of 40 (Herda). His wife then sold us to John Emerson, an army surgeon. I lived with John Emerson in St.Louis until we moved to Illinois in 1836. In 1838 Mr. Emerson and I moved to Wisconsin, where I met my wife, Harriet Robinson. A few years later we moved back to Missouri. In 1843 my second owner, John Emerson, died, and all of Mr.Emerson's property went to his wife, who sold us to her step-brother, Captain Henry Bainbridge, until March of 1846 when I requested to buy my freedom and was denied (Herda). A month later, on April 6, 1846 my wife and I filed petitions in the Missouri Circuit Court to get permission to sue against my late owner’s widow,

After his father’s passing Tom Poppell was able to secure his thirty- one year reign as sheriff and rule the county with a strong iron fist. His endless rule allowed him the opportunity to exert “his will and shape the county” the way he imagined in order to keep both races separate. The thrill for power over the county was the sole motivator in his line of work. He worked on his own time, lived by his own law, and McIntosh’s citizens acknowledged his dominance by stating “’you weren’t scared when you saw him coming, but you could feel the power’” when he was nearby. This power is without a doubt evident and it is the reason the majority of the citizens’ idolized Poppell.

James Scott was a wealthy man, born in 1831, who inherited a large sum of money from his father. He then used that wealth to invest into real estate, and made his fortune. His methods were often less than savory, and according to reports, “Scott tried to intimidate his competitors and, if that did not succeed, he sued them. ” Although Scott’s methods were not the best, they were not illegal, as many assumed. In response to allegations that the money used was tainted, one of Scott’s few colleagues publicly responded in a newspaper, saying that “The [illegible] that Mr. Scott possessed at the time of his death was left to him by his father, Judge Scott, who died about 60 years ago…” He further elaborated that instead of squandering the inheritance, like

What this entails is that the actual sole physical occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for the person occupying the property must be establish. Lisa demonstrated this by construction a fence between her house and Danny’s. In fact, by doing this, she establish sole possession of the property in question. Once more, by fencing in the property, and the fact that Danny knew what she was doing because he lived next door and did not contest, showed Lisa was being open, visible, and notorious with her actions. She also was continuous and peaceable with her actions because during the fifteen years of usage, there were no issues with Danny, and he never complained that her actions were wrong. Only after fifteen years and a survey, did the ownership questions come up. Lastly, Lisa believed that the property was hers and never asked or obtained permission before erecting the fence. Since all the elements coexist, Lisa has a legal right to claim adverse possession to the property. Furthermore, the state has a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years. What this means is that Lisa must have occupied the property for the full statutory period, and this action must have coexisted with the other elements of adverse possession before the statute of limitations runs out. It was not until fifteen years later, and only after the survey, Lisa found out

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.

According to the textbook, it states, “Our legal system creates a peaceful means to acquire, retain, and divest of property, and to settle property disputes” (Lau, 2012, p. 242). The textbook also states, “Without laws to protect ownership, the stability of our society would be seriously undermined” (Lau, 2012, p. 241). The issue in this case is who has the burden of proof regarding the averse possession of the property, so if I was the judge I would rule for the Kirlins. McLean and Steven are not the owners of the real property but has claimed the real property for their own (Lau, 2012, p. 255). The article states that the Kirlins brought the land in 1984 for $55,000; in fact, they never seen McLean and Stevens ever using the property when they went for walks (Denver). I feel the Kirlins should prevail in this event of litigation.

Facts: Plaintiff is claiming title to property via adverse possession because she and her husband resided on said property from 1951-1963. In 1951, plaintiff and her husband acquired ownership of property. In 1955, they borrowed $4,000 from Blue using the property to secure said loan. Blue assigned their interest in the deed over to Moheno. In 1958 the trust deed was foreclosed upon and the property was purchased by Moheno. In 1960, Moheno transferred the property to Berkey, her husband. In 1961, Berkey incurred debt against the property by borrowing $8,000 from Escoto. In 1962, Berkey gave the plaintiff (Harvey) a grant deed to the property as a civil suit settlement. In 1964, the Berkey-Escato trust was foreclosed upon and the defendant (Nurick) purchased it and was given a trustee’s deed. The plaintiff and her husband continually resided on the property, first as owners and

Red River Thrift and Loan Co. may argue that they have priority because first and second mortgages overrule judgment liens, unless the judgment lien is unpaid tax debt. Judgment liens are usually considered as junior mortgages compared to the first and second mortgage. Red River’s foreclosure would wipe out the Interstate Bank of Bastrop’s judgment lien against Phil Dunfee, and would clear any judgments attached to the title of the property. In other words, when a mortgagor forecloses, any judgment lien that was recorded prior to the mortgage would be

Assuming, arguendo, that there was a special relationship between the Co-Owners and Hannon—there was not—Byrne fails to plead facts sufficient to show that the Co-Owners Owed Byrne a duty. Critically, the presence of a special relationship is merely a necessary, and not a sufficient, condition required to demonstrate the presence of a legally cognizable duty. In addition to a special relationship, Byrne must also plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that the probability of potential harm and the gravity of potential harm outweigh the burdens that would be required to reduce the risk of harm. Warr, 433 Md. at 182 (quoting Ashburn, 306 Md. at 627).

FACTS: In 1982, defendant purchased thirty-nine acres of land, consisting of woods, swamp, and meadows, in an isolated part of Lincoln, Vermont. He put up several "no trespassing" signs where the road turned into his driveway and posted his land with signs that said, "POSTED Private Property.

The first case shows that Martin had bought the mountain property 31 years ago as the joint tenant with his friends. The friends of Martin is passed away already and he had not been in the property for more than 20 years. The actions taken by Martin clearly indicates that he was not careful about the property and other people used it for their own purpose. The law shows that “Placing property in joint tenancy may disinherit children or others since property held in joint tenancy passes to the survivor regardless of what the deceased joint tenant's Will or Trust directs and regardless of whom the decedent's heirs are under law. Usually it is a person’s intent to leave their property to their spouse and then to their children.