There are several rights coming into question in Martin 's situation. The first thing in question is the rights of joint tenancy of his friend Peter. Usually, joint tenancy requires the share of the decided to be shared amongst the current owners, but this contract had the right of survivorship attached. Joint Tenacy causes a paradox where each member both own all and a part of the property (Orth, 2012, p.490), because of that the bank has every right to move to foreclose on the mountain property. However, Martin could claim that selling the property would cause injury to him, as he was not a co signor on the lease agreement and challenge the bank for sole ownership. Similarly, I would advise Martin that he should pursue a settlement giving the bank sole ownership of the mountain property.
I would advise Martin to settle for sale of the property because of the situation with Otis. That is because Otis may have claim of the property through adverse possession. That is because he generally believes he does, he is open, notorious, continuous and …show more content…
820). But Martin has every right to protest and fight this action. He can file for an injunction on city’s neglect to contact him and file suit. As with is common law, he can fight it all the way back up to the Supreme Court of the United States and try to have Kelo v New London overturned. Which might have some standing as the lot in question in that case is still empty 11 years later after it was taken from the owners. Showing that it did more harm than good as it removed citizens and caused a decrease in tax revenue over all. However, this would be a long battle that may not be in Martin 's best interests. Rather he should settle for above market value of his property, as there is a case, he was never contacted about the seizure or offered a price before construction
I would advise Martin to settle for sale of the property because of the situation with Otis. That is because Otis may have claim of the property through adverse possession. That is because he generally believes he does, he is open, notorious, continuous and …show more content…
820). But Martin has every right to protest and fight this action. He can file for an injunction on city’s neglect to contact him and file suit. As with is common law, he can fight it all the way back up to the Supreme Court of the United States and try to have Kelo v New London overturned. Which might have some standing as the lot in question in that case is still empty 11 years later after it was taken from the owners. Showing that it did more harm than good as it removed citizens and caused a decrease in tax revenue over all. However, this would be a long battle that may not be in Martin 's best interests. Rather he should settle for above market value of his property, as there is a case, he was never contacted about the seizure or offered a price before construction