Joint Tenancy With Right Of Survivorship Case Study

Their land was appraised and found to be worth $560,000. (No entry due to no accounting transaction occurred)

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.

If one of the executors disagrees with the contract the land and the property will be split among the remaining executors equally and the conditions 1 to 8 will still apply.

In contrast, the 2016 amendments to MCL 559.167, which became effective on September 21, 2016, created a new “reversion” process to eliminate “need not be built” units after the expiration of the six (6) year or ten (10) year statutory time periods. Newly created MCL 559.167(4) now requires 2/3 of the co-owners that are in good standing to vote to approve a “reversion” of “need not be built” units to common elements by adopting a declaration that will be recorded in the register of deeds after the expiration of the statutory time periods. If 2/3 co-owner approval is obtained, the condominium association must then send the declaration to a developer or successor developer at its last known address. The developer or successor developer may withdraw the land on which the units were to be located or amend the master deed to make the units “must be built” within the sixty (60) day time period. If the developer or successor developer fails to withdraw the land or amend the master deed within sixty (60) days, the condominium association may record the declaration, which becomes effective upon recording and the right to construct the “need not be built” units will be eliminated.

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.

3) the husband did not own the residence individually or as a tenant in common with his wife, in which case there may have been a legitimate reason to transfer the property to tenancy by the entirety other than to avoid a judgment debt.

"[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,

The State of California has a mixed approach in that it is a lien theory and title theory state. According to lien theory "execution of a mortgage or a deed of trust only creates a lien against the property, it does not transfer title. The borrower retains full title to the property throughout the term of the loan and the lender simply has the right to foreclose the lien if the borrower defaults. California is a lien theory state in regards to mortgages but is a title theory state in regards to deeds of trust. According to title theory, the property is transferred but only as collateral with no possessory rights and is referred to as "legal title, bare title, or naked title." (Haupt, 2009, p.206) In either case, should the borrower default, they will lose the property.

You and your husband are married for two years living in community property state with a prenuptial agreement declaring that all the property owned is a separate property. You came to seek for advice to accomplish your financial objectives. Being able to retire when you reach age 65 is your priority. On the other hand ability to minimize death tax at the death of the first spouse and the death of the second spouse and provide adequate liquidity for each of your estates are important factors you would like to plan and possible accomplish in the future.

It is as well, prudent to Martin to ask himself how severely he need or want the waterfront property before continuing with taking lawful activities. The “future home of the Tar Heel Family Resort” is in progress and the neighboring houses have as of now been torn down (Property Case Study). Eminent domain is normally consider as a state over its people, yet the rule can be taken to a much higher level…God over the nations, since it is God who created the earth and who owns it all. Nations are born and can cease to exist, empires rise and fall, but “The Most high God, possessor of heaven and earth is forever (Genesis 14:9 KJV). My general assessment to Martin would be for him to take the government full market compensation value for his coastal property, and make another investment in a different property. “Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future” (Proverbs 19:20

1) Opie cannot claim possession because North Carolina statutes state that in a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, the land is automatically transferred to the other or in this case, the last living joint tenant. This supersedes any conveyance made in the will. Additionally, Opie did not occupy the land. Ernest did. In order for there to be a claim for adverse possession, there must be an adherence to the conditions in the adverse possession doctrine.

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.

With the permission of the seller, Broker A submits a listing to MLS inviting cooperating brokers to help find a buyer. This is an offer of:

The following is a case study of Blackwell v Blackwell, that is connected to the principle of Secret Trusts and particularly Half Secret Trusts. In order for the principle to be understood, it is significant to expatiate on what secret trusts are and the several laws revolving around them. In general terms, a secret trust arises where a testator, A, tells B that he is leaving property to B on his death, and that he wishes B to hold it on trust for C, even though no trust for C has been set out in any formal will executed by A. If B agrees, when the property passes to B on A's death, the court will enforce the secret trust despite its informality and require B to hold the property for C. In secret trusts, two different types are recognised by the courts, one where the trustee and the terms of the trust are not mentioned in the will, this is a fully secret trust while a half secret trust is subject to a trust obligation which is apparent on the face of the Will, but the terms of the trust and the identity of the beneficiary are not disclosed. The trustee is not in position to deny the trust and can not fraudulently take the property because he is a trustee for someone. Equity will not allow him take the property beneficially. The major difference between both is the extent in which disclosure is made as to the recipient of the gift intends to take the property as a trustee rather than for himself. Secret Trusts can also arise where there is no will, it may be in a case of

In essence, “leases” are created between landlords and tenants as contracts to grant exclusive possession of the land for a defined period of time, in exchange of rent from tenant. Leases give contractual interests to tenants, while at the same time creates proprietary interests in the land by granting exclusive possession, which elevates a tenancy into an “estate/interest in land”. It can therefore be understood and has been suggested by commentators that leases are of dual nature and should “be characterised as something of a hybrid”[1]: a hybrid of contract and estate in land. In the landmark case of Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust[2],