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 hostile about his claim (Richardson, 2015, p.1395). While the time period needed differs from state to state, Martin hasn’t been there in 20 years, which would leave room for the claim of abandonment. It is open and notorious because everyone in the community knew Otis was living there. Otis’s claim of being there for 20 years also makes it continuous. And it is hostile because Otis was never given permission to live there. Because of those factors, Otis has a level of right to live there, and I would advise Martin to let the bank deal with it. Unfortunately, it seems as if Otis never read 1 Thessalonians 4:6 “That no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you,” as taking another man’s property is a transgression. As for the Coastal Property, it depends on how much Martin wants to keep the property as to how I would advise him. As the taking 's clause points out in the U.S. constitution "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This has come to be known fair market value for the property taken. However, to just show up and have a note on the door shows little attempt for contact was made, as there are beach houses, which are expected to be rented out, or just used as vacation homes. The city of Wilmington has a higher standard of due diligence to make contact with Martin than what they did. The city of Wilmington does have the authority to repurpose private land if it improves the public good per Kelo v New London (Tillman, 2016 ,p. …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 began. The final property in question is that of the 1966 Pontiac GTO. While the fake valet broke the bailment of the vehicle when he stole it. As Micah 7:5-6 teaches us “Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man 's enemies are the men of his own house,” so Martin should have been more suspicious of a lone valet at a fancy reseraunt. The man
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 hostile about his claim (Richardson, 2015, p.1395). While the time period needed differs from state to state, Martin hasn’t been there in 20 years, which would leave room for the claim of abandonment. It is open and notorious because everyone in the community knew Otis was living there. Otis’s claim of being there for 20 years also makes it continuous. And it is hostile because Otis was never given permission to live there. Because of those factors, Otis has a level of right to live there, and I would advise Martin to let the bank deal with it. Unfortunately, it seems as if Otis never read 1 Thessalonians 4:6 “That no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you,” as taking another man’s property is a transgression. As for the Coastal Property, it depends on how much Martin wants to keep the property as to how I would advise him. As the taking 's clause points out in the U.S. constitution "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This has come to be known fair market value for the property taken. However, to just show up and have a note on the door shows little attempt for contact was made, as there are beach houses, which are expected to be rented out, or just used as vacation homes. The city of Wilmington has a higher standard of due diligence to make contact with Martin than what they did. The city of Wilmington does have the authority to repurpose private land if it improves the public good per Kelo v New London (Tillman, 2016 ,p. …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 began. The final property in question is that of the 1966 Pontiac GTO. While the fake valet broke the bailment of the vehicle when he stole it. As Micah 7:5-6 teaches us “Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man 's enemies are the men of his own house,” so Martin should have been more suspicious of a lone valet at a fancy reseraunt. The man