Wayne Carter: Case Study

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

Even though Sun Valley Realty had prepared,and duly delivered to Hoffman, the deed of trust, the seller's closing statement among other closing documents like the lot sale agreement the company did not act on them.

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.

Section 3.2 Authority. The Seller has full corporate power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver, and to perform its obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder, and has taken all necessary action to authorize the purchase hereunder on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Seller and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws from time to time in effect, which affect the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and by general principles of equity regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in

Comstock v. Finn, 56 P.2d 957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). The period between 1955 and 1963, the plaintiffs paid rent to remain on the property. Tenants cannot argue a landlord’s title to said property while under his lease for the purpose of adverse possession. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 54 P.2d 73, 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). Additionally taxes on the property were assessed to Berkley between 1961 and 1962 to which he paid. Plaintiffs could not produce proof that the monies given to Berkley were for tax payments and not rent payments. Lastly adverse possession as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 325 must be continuous and uninterrupted for a minimum of a five year period. Plaintiff lost interest in the property in 1958 when interest in the property when Moheno received the trustee’s deed. Plaintiff was awarded Berkey’s grant deed in 1962. Thus the plaintiff fell short of the five year requirement as stated

Upon visiting his land in the North Carolina Mountains to go fly-fishing, Martin surprised to see that someone had built a cabin there without his consent. When approached the cabin, he was shot at and heard the voice of Otis, a man that was from the same town that he had been a deputy, yelling at him to “Git off my land.” Martin responded to Otis letting him know that it was really his land he had the deed to prove it. Otis made it clear that he didn’t care about the deed, and that he had lived on the property openly for about 20 years, and that as far as he was concerned, it was now his. In line with Kubasek, Brennan, and Browne, Otis is involved in involuntary transfer of real property.

The first property to be discussed is a Mountain Property purchased by Martin 31 years ago. Martin bought this property with a group of friends as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. In most states, a joint tenant with the right of survivorship states that each owner of the property has equal shares and no one person can have more than the other. It also states that each of the owners holds their portions of the property until a time in which one of the owner’s dies. At his point, the property is redistributed equally to the remaining owners. This process proceeds until only one owner is alive, at which time he or she becomes the sole owner, and in this case that would be Martin since he is the sole surviving owner of the property in question. However, when Peter, one of the original joint

Bachrach gave over his interest of the home to Salzman. At that point of time, Salzman closed the sale of her townhouse. Bachrach giving over the deed to Salzman at the time served two functions. Giving over the deed allowed her to obtain a favorable mortgage on the home and provided tax advantages. About six months later this helped Salzman continue to receive a monthly maintenance payment from her ex-husband (Colorado Supreme Court, 2000).

This does create the question of what happens when a person believes that the property was their own.

1. Is the land that Jennifer Inc owns legal? Do they have all the papers justifying that it is indeed their land?

The quitclaim deed holds the statement that the person named (and whose signature the property bears) has quit ownership of the property listed and conveys it to the person who holds the quitclaim deed (grantee). The quitclaim offers no guarantee. In fact, someone with no ownership whatsoever is able to file a quitclaim on a property. This is usually done with the intent to commit fraud by selling someone “zero” ownership to a piece of property. If the claim is wrong, there is no legal remedy. The one holding the fraudulent quitclaim is simply left with no ownership for their money spent.

Facts: Two property owners disputed a strip of land bordering their respective lots. Mendonca (P) built a fence extending 24 feet into Cities’ (D) property. D was aware of this. The fence was up and untouched by D for 15 years. P paid no part of the D’s property tax for the disputed strip of land. Then D decided (after 15 years) to rebuild its gas station, and in the process tore down the fence. P put up a new fence, which D tore down, because the contractor who was working on the job and D used the strip of land for storage purposes for a few weeks. P sued on an adverse possession claim.

Schreier (2005), Powanga & Powanga (2008) and Pizam (2010) declared that deeded ownership referred else fee simple, a deed ownership is a written contract that supplies legal title after the contract price has been paid in full after the procedure of the contract. Kaufman, Lashley, & Schreier (2009), Holcomb & Pizam (2008), Upcherch & Lashley (2006) Schreier (2005) and Chi (1998) agreed that the purchaser owns the property at one week a year for ever, which means you should have the obligations to use, rent, lend, will, and sell your share of the property as suitable after that, recorded with the court in the place where purchased and leave it to others as part of the estate, when the owner died. So, the purchaser should ask before signing

I: Should the Plaintiff be allowed to claim a easement by implication , even though the Plaintiff sold the land to the defendants (Larry Manns & others) upon which the easements is claimed?

The Continuing Borrower and the Released Borrower enter into this deed in connection with the Loan Agreement.