Property law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 5

Property law - Case Study ExampleThe individuals share equal ownership and have the same and undivided right to dispose or keep the property. It also creates the Right of Survivorship that provides that if one tenant passes away, the rest of the property goes to those who survive them (Hinkel, 2012). According to joint tenancy, Andy and Barney owned the same interest in the undivided property with an equal share and the estate was vested for the period of their lifetime. In addition, both Andy and Barney enjoyed similar rights until one passed away. Under the right of survivorship, when Andy died, the remainder of the inbuilt property was mechanic bothy transferred to Barney. However, there could be a catch since it is not clear whether Barney had recorded an affidavit as to the death of Andy. It is true that, upon the death of Andy, Barney had the right of survivorship that ensured Barney got the title to the entire property. The procedure is that, in Andys death, the title was to be transferred to Barney after the recording of this affidavit, which describes the dead tenant and property, as well as an attached death security measure (Hinkel, 2012). I do agree with the advice, as long as the Barney had recorded the affidavit of death of Andy, who was the joint tenant. Adverse Possession In this case, I retain with the advice given. In adverse possession, a person can gain legal title through circularise, put to workual, continuous, and hostile possession of land to the owners projection (Jourdan & Radley-Gardney, 2010). In the case, such as this, where the possession is open and notorious, Ernst possessed the property openly in the middle of the property where the neighbors could see and act as all true owners of the land would. While occupying Barneys land, Ernst did not do so secretly such as to have denied him any legal rights to the land. Ernst has actually meliorate the land by building a cabin and fencing it, which was demonstrative of open and n otorious possession. Essentially, building his cabin there without any resistance is the almost notorious and open possession. While it is true that Barney did not have knowledge of Ernsts adverse use of his land, Ernsts possession is so notorious and open that it is impossible the neighbors around the property have no idea of his living there (Jourdan & Radley-Gardney, 2010). It is not also possible to expect Ernst to give the land nates even after he had been put on notice that the land will be reclaimed as shown by his behavior when Barney tried to addition the property, which indicates that Ernst intends to keep possession. I agree that they should overlook the law of adverse possession. Bailment and Conversion I agree that Barney cannot be found liable for any charges requested for by the seller at the classic car show. Bailment involves the temporary placing by a bailor of control of personal property to the hands of a bailee for a particular map on which the two have agre ed (Ashcroft & Ashcroft, 2011). In this case, Barney was the bailer while the valet was the bailee. Bailment is a contractual relationship because the two, either impliedly or expressly bind to act to specific terms. In this case, the valet only received control of the car while Barney retains an ownership interest. While the valets interest in the car, during the bailment period, was prize to that of Barney, he violated the agreement by exchanging Barneys car and breaking their agreement. Once Barney was done with