Case A: Joint Tenancy/Right of Survivorship
The law on adverse possession specifically states the emergent possibility of people [more than one] owning a single property. In events like this, the share of property only becomes transferred to the other owners once there is an occurrence of death. This is termed as the right of survivorship. the survivors of the property then would share a specific division of the properties involved. In the case of Barney’s property, which is shared along with his friends, the situation is rather crucial. Relatively, the law as a legal owner of the land recognizes the supposed ‘illegal tenant’ in the property and the house established in it.
Given that Barney did not check on the property for several years, and Oppie, his son, only gave attention to the property during a specific event. It is stipulated in the law of properties that a person living in a property for 20 years without being specifically given subpoena by the owner. Notably, the consideration on such situation is dependent on the fact that the tenant took care and developed the property for 20 long years. In this case, claiming ownership over the property based on the rights of survival becomes dim. Notably, the only way to redeem such right to the property could only be pushed forward in recognition to the fact that the current tenant may not have yet incurred his own property deeds. Along with this, it could be assumed that he has proper documentations proving that he has been able to pay the taxes for the property during the time that he has stayed in the said location.
Case B: Nickelodeon Beach Resort
Given that the buyer of the land has already paid for the rights of the property to the land’s officials, it could be understood that the property’s values is ready for liquidation. In cases like this, the decision lies on the condition of the chance by which the owner specifically subjects to the decision of the major members of the community. It could be that Barney may have not been given any specific note on the coming up demolition and renovation of the area, his non-attention to the beach property [although not stipulated in the case] could be considered neglect of ownership. It could be noted through the narrative that it took Barney a long time to visit the area especially that it has been strongly imposed in the presentation that he was able to see the signs about the upcoming building just recently [although it could be suggested that the said notices were put up for a long time already].
A big company like Nickelodeon of course makes it clear among its stakeholders that a bought property where an establishment as huge as a resort would be cleared of from any adversaries. This should include the legality of the agreements including the clear papers of land ownership. After which, the situation among the tenants or the residents of the area should be clear enough to make sure than no particular disagreements would occur. Notably, given that the building of the new establishment has already been given an approval, this means that the legalities of the construction and ownership have already been passed. The letter that Barney received simply states that he is being notified of such a finalized decision. Considerably, with such notice, Barney has no choice but to oblige to accept the agreement that the local government gives him which is to give him the full value of his property. Notably, this would mean that like the other residents in the area, he is to subject to the agreement that all properties shall be liquidated through financial reimbursement of the value of each land being taken into account by the owners and builders of the new Nickelodeon resort.
Case C: Stolen Car
In the case brief, it was not in any way assumed that the receiver of the stolen car was given a specific proof or deed of sale proving that the car already belonged to him. This is of course the said property was stolen. Carl [the supposed valet service crew] was not able to garner such documentations hence was not able to make successful transfer. It is because of this fact that the ownership was not transferred successfully. It could be assumed that the purchaser of the car knew that there was some specific anomalies in the sale that has been made. Nevertheless, he still did accept the product given him.
At the occurrence of knowing that the car was stolen, wanting the amount he paid for to be given back to him is quite unreasonable. Although there was some value that he lost in the exchange between him and Carl, Barney was never part of the agreement. The value that he lost then should not be passed on to Barney or anyone else but to Carl alone. Notably, if there is anyone who should return the value he paid for the car, it was Carl. In a way, knowing that there was an anomaly in the sale that he was being offered should have already prompted him to not accept the deal and yet he did. In several occasions and specific states, the purchase of a car without any valid deeds and documentations is considered as an act of accomplice to the crime of car napping.
Barney on the other hand should be given back his own car. In this case, the victimization is placed upon the shoulders of Barney, He was the one to whom the property was taken, and thus upon realization of its capture, it is to him that the property should be returned. Carl and the purchaser of the car after the stealing are the ones who are supposed to settle the return and the exchange of values lost. Nevertheless, this could only occur if Carl would immediately be brought in for questioning.
Arrett, Michael James. (2005). “Adverse Possession of Copyright: A Proposal to Complete Copyright’s Unification with Property Law“, Journal of Corporation Law 31:1.
Blake, Joseph (31 August 2012). “Criminalising squatting hurts the poor and benefits the rich”. The Guardian.
Cohen, Felix. (1999). “Dialogue on Private Property”. Rutgers LR 357.
Fruehwald, Edwin, (2010). “A Biological Basis of Rights,” 19 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 195.