Intentional Interference With Property Case Summary

Explain adverse possession, and describe the acronym that is commonly used to remember the elements of the concept.

This memorandum assesses the merits of Anne Peters’ in West Palm Beach, Florida, for possible claims against Don and Betty Detman for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for violation of Florida’s Spite Fence statute.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

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

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

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

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.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

The action is an intentional tort. This means doing a civil wrong and validating a legal duty to another party.

An intentional tort is a person deliberately causing harm or loss to another person. Examples are trespassing, causing a nuisance and defaming are intentional torts.

Personally, I believe that the Court ruling in favor of the defendant was correct. I say this because the landowner did not require or ask the public for a monetary fee to use the recreational space. Therefore, according to the Recreational Use Immunity Statue (RCW 4.24.200-.210) protects the landowner from lawsuits. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was injured. However, the defendant (the landowner) is not responsible for the

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.

Wojdyla v. City of ParkRidge, 148 Ill. 2d 417 (1992); Belton v. Forest Preserve Dist., 943 N.E. 2d 221, 227-228 (1st Dist. 2011). Illinois courts have ruled that a duty to maintain public property arises once public improvements are undertaken. West v. Kirkham, 147 Ill. 2d 1 (1992). In this case, the District knew that the crane was going to be delivered on November 9, 2014. Therefore, they had a duty to make sure that the property was reasonably safe when Mr. Nichols delivered the crane. Since the District failed to put up signs and hire a flagman to direct traffic, it caused the property to become unsafe for the workers. Therefore, the District was unable to maintain their property in a reasonably safe manner while Mr. Nichols was on the property. Because of this, the District cannot be immune from the injuries that occurred to Mr.

The front of defendant’s property has waist-high stone walls separating the backyard from the driveway area, while the back of the property abuts state parklands and has no separating wall. R.13, 10, 16. A gravel path leads from the driveway to the

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles