Introduction
While Martin is simultaneously dealing with three separate issues involving seized or stolen property, in each case he is not without options. It is important to examine the various legal issues related to Martin’s property ownership to determine his rights and decide the best course of action for attempting to reclaim his property. As Martin’s attorney, it is essential to not only provide him with legal options, but recognizing that he is a spiritual man, help him to apply biblical principles to guide himself through these difficult situations.
Mountain Property In the case of Martin’s mountain property, there are two separate issues at play. The first issue that must be addressed is the bank’s foreclosure on the property due to Andrew’s default on his loan, and his decision to use Martin’s property as collateral. In this case, because the property was originally purchased by Martin and his three friends as joint tenants with a right to survivorship, Peter had no right to leave the property to his son Andrew in his will after he passed away. As Moy (1994) points out, the right to survivorship dictates that when one tenant of the property dies, his share is automatically transferred to the remaining surviving tenants. Consequently, when a tenant dies he has nothing to leave or pass on by will because the surviving tenant already owns the title to the property (p. 17). As Martin’s attorney, this would be the basis of my argument. Because Martin is the only surviving original owner of the property, Andrew has no stake in it and therefore has no right to use the property as collateral for his loan. Legally, the deed for the property should be solely in Martin’s name as the only surviving tenant. Therefore, the bank cannot foreclose on Martin’s property based on a debt that Andrew incurred. The second issue involving Martin’s mountain property is the fact that Otis has taken up residence there and is now claiming the property as his own. According to McLendon (1986), in North Carolina the following criteria must be met to claim property by adverse possession. First, the claimant must have actual possession of the property in question, meaning they must make use of the land in a way that is customary in the community by title owners of similar land. Second, the possession of the land must have been hostile and exclusive, meaning the claimant must use it in a way that shows claim of right. Third, the claimant must have occupied the land for a requisite period of twenty years continuously and uninterrupted. Finally, the possessor must occupy the land with intent to claim title while excluding any recognition to the true owner’s rights (p. 1499). Based on the facts of the case, it appears Otis has met the requirements to claim Martin’s land by adverse possession. As Martin’s attorney, the best course of action to fight Otis’ claim is to prove that one or more of the criteria to adverse possession has not been met by Otis. Doing so may be the best chance for Martin to retain the portion of his Mountain property now being claimed by Otis. Coastal Property With regards to Martin’s beach house, we need to look at the validity of the claim of …show more content…
According to Pearce (2007), following the case of Kelo v. New London (2005), North Carolina lawmakers added a provision in the state’s eminent domain laws intended to limit the extent to which the state or city can seize private property. Under this provision, eminent domain can only be used to take individual parcels of land that are deemed to be blighted or dilapidated. The provision also includes a specific definition of what meets these criteria (p. 1790).
This is important in Martin’s case because it precludes the government from grouping multiple properties together for urban redevelopment. For the city to legally seize Martin’s property, they would have to prove that the property is blighted or dilapidated. If that is not the case, they have no legal grounds to seize Martin’s property under North Carolina eminent domain law. As long as his beach house does not meet the states definition of blighted or dilapidated, I would advise Martin to fight the state legally on this issue in order to save his
While Martin is simultaneously dealing with three separate issues involving seized or stolen property, in each case he is not without options. It is important to examine the various legal issues related to Martin’s property ownership to determine his rights and decide the best course of action for attempting to reclaim his property. As Martin’s attorney, it is essential to not only provide him with legal options, but recognizing that he is a spiritual man, help him to apply biblical principles to guide himself through these difficult situations.
Mountain Property In the case of Martin’s mountain property, there are two separate issues at play. The first issue that must be addressed is the bank’s foreclosure on the property due to Andrew’s default on his loan, and his decision to use Martin’s property as collateral. In this case, because the property was originally purchased by Martin and his three friends as joint tenants with a right to survivorship, Peter had no right to leave the property to his son Andrew in his will after he passed away. As Moy (1994) points out, the right to survivorship dictates that when one tenant of the property dies, his share is automatically transferred to the remaining surviving tenants. Consequently, when a tenant dies he has nothing to leave or pass on by will because the surviving tenant already owns the title to the property (p. 17). As Martin’s attorney, this would be the basis of my argument. Because Martin is the only surviving original owner of the property, Andrew has no stake in it and therefore has no right to use the property as collateral for his loan. Legally, the deed for the property should be solely in Martin’s name as the only surviving tenant. Therefore, the bank cannot foreclose on Martin’s property based on a debt that Andrew incurred. The second issue involving Martin’s mountain property is the fact that Otis has taken up residence there and is now claiming the property as his own. According to McLendon (1986), in North Carolina the following criteria must be met to claim property by adverse possession. First, the claimant must have actual possession of the property in question, meaning they must make use of the land in a way that is customary in the community by title owners of similar land. Second, the possession of the land must have been hostile and exclusive, meaning the claimant must use it in a way that shows claim of right. Third, the claimant must have occupied the land for a requisite period of twenty years continuously and uninterrupted. Finally, the possessor must occupy the land with intent to claim title while excluding any recognition to the true owner’s rights (p. 1499). Based on the facts of the case, it appears Otis has met the requirements to claim Martin’s land by adverse possession. As Martin’s attorney, the best course of action to fight Otis’ claim is to prove that one or more of the criteria to adverse possession has not been met by Otis. Doing so may be the best chance for Martin to retain the portion of his Mountain property now being claimed by Otis. Coastal Property With regards to Martin’s beach house, we need to look at the validity of the claim of …show more content…
According to Pearce (2007), following the case of Kelo v. New London (2005), North Carolina lawmakers added a provision in the state’s eminent domain laws intended to limit the extent to which the state or city can seize private property. Under this provision, eminent domain can only be used to take individual parcels of land that are deemed to be blighted or dilapidated. The provision also includes a specific definition of what meets these criteria (p. 1790).
This is important in Martin’s case because it precludes the government from grouping multiple properties together for urban redevelopment. For the city to legally seize Martin’s property, they would have to prove that the property is blighted or dilapidated. If that is not the case, they have no legal grounds to seize Martin’s property under North Carolina eminent domain law. As long as his beach house does not meet the states definition of blighted or dilapidated, I would advise Martin to fight the state legally on this issue in order to save his