Potts V. Burnette Case Study

I agree with some of your points on Martin’s challenges regarding the rental property regarding survivorship. However, we have different insight on the advice we would give him as his lawyer. Martin did in fact purchase the house approximately thirty-one years ago, but he has not visited it in over twenty years. North Carolina case law, such as Potts v. Burnette, 1981, has upheld the requirement for one to take possession of a property by means of adverse possession one must occupy the property openly and notoriously for twenty years (Potts v. Burnette, 1981).
The scenario stated Martin has not occupied the property in over twenty years. It is clear Otis has fulfilled the major requirement and occupied Martin’s property openly and notoriously for over twenty years. However, if somehow Peter’s son Andrew occupied the property it could potentially put into question Otis’ time he needs to obtain the property by adverse possession. The joint tenancy has the right of survivorship …show more content…
We were not given the information the dealer had, but it was explained the dealership had no knowledge the vehicle was stolen. Therefore, we assume the dealership made a good faith purchase or trade in this situation. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 2-403 does make an argument that if the dealer acted in good faith he may be covered by a good faith purchase. The scenario provided does indicate the dealer had no knowledge the vehicle was stolen so I make the assumption a proper and ethical investigation was conducted based off the information provided. For a proper assessment of the situation, state laws must be analyzed and a determination of statutory definition of larcenous conduct must be defined (The Good Faith Purchase, 1963). My main point is to reinforce that the dealership made a good faith purchase and Martin has a faint chance of obtaining his vehicle