Response Paper 2: Property Possesion Case

719 Words3 Pages
Thank you for your comments. To answer your questions I offer this:
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.
Article 4 of the North Carolina General Statutes iterates the adverse possession laws. According to the code, the following elements must exist:

 Open and Notorious Use
One claiming adverse possession must
…show more content…
 This element would also make Ernest’s claim void. Although there is currently hostile intent, this would have had to be the sole reason for his habitation of the property.

 Continuous Use
Continuous use means that the occupation of the property must have been continual without lapse for the entire period as dictated by statute, in this case 20 years.

 This was not the case with Opie.
 Ernest’s claim is void, as he did not occupy the property continually. This is evidenced by the recognition of both Barney and Ernest of each other from the town where Barney worked.

Barney’s case differs from the Kelo case in that the intended use of the property is not for the use and benefit of the general-public, rather for the benefit a “particular class of identifiable individuals” (KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) ). In the Kelo case, the eminent domain was executed under the guise of stimulating the local economy and increasing jobs, in addition to the elimination of alleged blight. Further, the Kelo case pivoted on the constitutional condition that this development be for ‘public use’, which is in my opinion a stretch of the intended cushion in this statement. Not only was this not for public use, it was not even developed.
Barey’s case on the other hand, is technically intended for the use of the general public, however, it is tailored to a

    More about Response Paper 2: Property Possesion Case

      Get Access