Property Case Study After many years of hard work, Martin wanted live a stress free live by retiring. Unfortunately, in a matter of days all his plans began to unravel with several inopportune circumstances. Being a shrewd businessman, Martin made several excellent investment decisions the past thirty years. Unfortunately, he faces the possibility of losing his mountain and coastal properties along with his beloved 1966 Pontiac GTO. As Martin’s attorney, there are several legal implications that must be considered in order to recover his property.
Mountain Property Let’s deal with Martin’s first problem the mountain property. Martin has encountered several legal problems. Over 31 years ago, Martin formed a joint tenancy with three …show more content…
Orth (1991) goes on to argue, in some states the principle related to a joint tenant may not leave his or her share by will to another party until a single surviving joint tenant is the sole survivor. In the state of North Carolina that is not the rule, all estates should not go the sole survivor, but vested to deceased heirs. Since all other parties have passed, Martin and Andrew own 50% of the interest of the property. Andrew had not right to use the property for collateral because he did not own 100%; therefore the lender does not have the right to foreclose on the property. Since Martin is the co-owner of the property the situation with lender with give him the advance to win his case and allow him to keep his …show more content…
On his drive in, Martin noticed the signs advertising the new “Tar Heel Family Resort.” It never dawned on him that this resort would be a part of his property until he turned on his street. He realized several neighbors’ houses have been destroyed to make way for the new resort. Martin later discovered his house had been claimed by the city, which is considered to be eminent domain. Martin was furious, was the government allowed to seize his property without his consent (Bakst, 2007)? In the North Carolina, it is legal for government authority to seize private property to solely benefit the economic development of the community (Bakst, 2007). Because of the 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, seven states has implemented constitutional amendments to protect citizens against eminent domain abuse. As in Martin’s case, North Carolina does not amendments in place to protect against eminent domain abuse. This is another loss to Martin, but he will be compensated at full market value for his
Mountain Property Let’s deal with Martin’s first problem the mountain property. Martin has encountered several legal problems. Over 31 years ago, Martin formed a joint tenancy with three …show more content…
Orth (1991) goes on to argue, in some states the principle related to a joint tenant may not leave his or her share by will to another party until a single surviving joint tenant is the sole survivor. In the state of North Carolina that is not the rule, all estates should not go the sole survivor, but vested to deceased heirs. Since all other parties have passed, Martin and Andrew own 50% of the interest of the property. Andrew had not right to use the property for collateral because he did not own 100%; therefore the lender does not have the right to foreclose on the property. Since Martin is the co-owner of the property the situation with lender with give him the advance to win his case and allow him to keep his …show more content…
On his drive in, Martin noticed the signs advertising the new “Tar Heel Family Resort.” It never dawned on him that this resort would be a part of his property until he turned on his street. He realized several neighbors’ houses have been destroyed to make way for the new resort. Martin later discovered his house had been claimed by the city, which is considered to be eminent domain. Martin was furious, was the government allowed to seize his property without his consent (Bakst, 2007)? In the North Carolina, it is legal for government authority to seize private property to solely benefit the economic development of the community (Bakst, 2007). Because of the 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, seven states has implemented constitutional amendments to protect citizens against eminent domain abuse. As in Martin’s case, North Carolina does not amendments in place to protect against eminent domain abuse. This is another loss to Martin, but he will be compensated at full market value for his