Legal Perspective Case

Legal Perspective

There are many aspects in the case with Barney, one of which is when things go bad they only get worse as in the case of Barney. When thoroughly looking through this case, the first area I would address is the situation with Opie. Upon death of a joint tenant, his or her interest is divided equally among the remaining joint owners. According to LAWDEPOT.com, joint tenancy with full right of survivorship is when two or more individuals own a property in equal shares such that when one of the joint tenant dies, then his/her interest in the property is automatically transferred to the surviving joint tenants. This type of ownership ensures that the deceased's' interest in the property does not go through probate, but it does not provide protections to the joint tenants from each other's liabilities (e.g. if one joint tenant goes bankrupt, creditors could force the sale of the property to get at that joint tenant's share of interest in the property). Joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship is available to two or more individuals, regardless of whether or not they are married to each other. This being said Opie really did not have the right to use Andy's share for collateral in the first place, because his share legally goes to the surviving tenants. However, legally the bank has no right to his interest unless Barney signed over interest to Opie.

As for Earnest, he may be able to use adverse possession to obtain the property from Barney. Adverse possession is something that most states provide when an individual openly treats real estate as his or her own, without declaration or authorization from the real owner, for a statutorily established period of time, possession is inevitably vested in that person (Kubasek, Brennan, Browne, 2012, p. 382). Earnest had lived on the property for close twenty years and Barney has decided to just get with his attorney and let him deal with it. This could become quite a worrisome matter. According to the free online law dictionary, by Farlex actual adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. It states that merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential. A Trespass may commence adverse possession, but there must be more than temporary use of the property by a trespasser for adverse possession to be established. Physical acts must show that the possessor is exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise. Ordinary use of the property--for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling timber--indicates actual possession. In some states acts that constitute actual possession are found in statute.

As for Barney's beach house, I am afraid that Barney is pretty much out of luck on this situation according to eminent domain. Eminent domain is the constitutional right of the government to acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for a rationale that will help the general welfare (Kubasek, Brennan, Browne, 2012, p. 382). I am very perplexed on this issue after reviewing the video case, of Kelo vs. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), where the issue of eminent domain also occurred(Olejarski, 2011). In my opinion, the government does abuse this privilege and there should