Property 1
Forum 2-Property
BUSI 561
Liberty University
Property 2
Martin is tired and ready to enjoy the stress free life of retirement. Unfortunately, his
well laid plans that he made through the years is being unraveled due to some unfortunate
circumstances. Martin has made some excellent investment decisions through the years and it
has been diverse. Unfortunately he now faces the very real possibility of not only losing both of
his properties but also his beloved 1966 Pontiac GTO. There are some legal implications
involved that Martin needs to consider for each of his unfortunate circumstances but none of
which guarantees that he will recover his property.
Martin’s first problem is his mountain property. Not only has Martin’s friend Peter left
his share on the interest in the property to his son Andrew, but Andrew has used that interest to
secure a lone which he has not defaulted on. He also has to contend with Otis who has been
“squatting” on his property for the past 20 some years and claims it is now his. Because the
property is located in North Carolina, state law and statutes are applicable in determining the
resolution of these issues.
North Carolina General Statutes defines this right of survivorship as all parties involved
having equal shares unless previously stated. Because there is not previous statement of shares
and Peter left his original 25% to his son Andrew and all other interested parties have passed
away this leaves Martin with a 50% interest and Andrew the same. Now because Andrew has
defaulted on his loan payments the lender wants to foreclose on the property. Even though
Andrew did not have proof of 100% ownership of the property the lender still went ahead and
allowed him to use the property as collateral. Since Andrew has now proof this will give Martin
an above average chance of winning this case as co-owner of the property and allow him to
potentially keep the property.
In regards to Otis who has been squatting on Martin’s property for the past 20 years, the
best thing to do would be to try and make peace with Otis and come to some kind of arrangement
Property 3
that is amicable to all parties involved. Per Article 4 Section 1 of the North Carolina General
Assembly, anyone who has lived under known and visible lines and boundaries on a property for
20 or more years then that person has the right to claim that property as his own.
To add to Martin’s distress about possibly losing his mountain home he now finds that his
beautiful beach home is being taken from him by the town using eminent domain. Dictionary of
finance and investment defines eminent domain as the
Right of a government entity to seize private property for the purpose of constructing a
public facility. Federal, state, and local governments can seize people's homes under
eminent domain laws as long as the homeowner is compensated at fair market value.
Martin’s situation with his beach home is similar to that of Kelo v. New London in 2006. Kelo
found herself in danger of losing her home because of eminent domain. The city was coming in
and going to build according to their economic development plan. Because of the decline in the
economy from previous years the city had this plan and the state authorized them to elaborate on
their plan along some acreage of Fort Trumbull. This would boost the city’s economy and
provide much needed job opportunities. Kelo filed a lawsuit to prevent losing her home, but
ultimately the Supreme Court favored the City of New London because it served a “public
purpose” under the “public use” provision of the constitution (Kelo, 2006).
Even though it appears that Martin will lose his beautiful beach home due to eminent
domain, based on the outcome and precedence set forth by Kelo v. New London, he should still
attempt to fight for his home with all he has. In the end even if it is all for not he will still
receive the full market value of his beach home. With that he could either purchase something
else in the area or relocate somewhere else and get something.
To cap everything off, in addition to potentially losing both his properties Martin has his
car stolen when he tries to go out to eat with an old acquaintance. He goes to a restaurant and
Property 4
sees the sign for valet parking and decides to use them. He hands over his keys and walks in.
Once inside the restaurant he and his guest determine they are not appropriately dressed and
decide to leave only to find out that the valet parking he thought he was using was in fact an
employee who had quit the day before and not returned the uniform or sign. Because of the day
he was already having it would have been completely appropriate for Martin to take out his anger
on the restaurant and hold them responsible for the theft of his car because it was their former
employee using their uniform and their sign which they failed to retrieve from the employee
when they quit. Martin chose to take the high road and filed a stolen car report with the
authorities.
The 1966 Pontiac GTO was finally located in Mount Olive, NC three weeks later. The
“new” owner purchased the car from a used car lot in Kinston, NC. The car lot had received the
car as a trade in for one of the other cars on their lot. All of these transactions were done in
“good faith”. The Uniform Commercial Code defines good faith as “honesty in fact and the
observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing” (UCC, 2012). The Uniform
Commercial Code protects the merchant (dealer) as long as he can prove that the transaction with
the former restaurant employee was not dishonest or unusual.
Martin on the other hand can argue that because there was not title when the transaction
occurred that this would constitute “dishonesty and unusual”. Had the dealer obtained the title
then he would have known that the employee was not the rightful owner because the names
would not have matched. Plus because Martine reported the car as stolen the potential new
owner would not have been able to register it. Martin has some very solid arguments against the
dealer and because of this the best option for the dealer would be to give the new owner his
money back so that Martin can have his car back and then the new owner can then seek legal
action against the former restaurant employee for his other car.
Property 5
At this point Martin is very upset and angry that this is all happening to him. He begins
to wonder if maybe he did something to upset GOD. Why is GOD allowing all this to happen to
him? God provides many promises to us. He states in Psalm 27:3 (NIV) “Though an army
besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then will I be
confident.” He also promises in 1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is
faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are
tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.
While these trials that Martin is going thru are not temptations they are still trials and God has
promised that he will not give more than we can bear.
Martin has a greater chance of getting his car back than he does his two properties.
While his retirement future appears bleak at the moment it will all work out. I would advise that
he speak with Otis and Andrew and try to work out some kind of arrangement so that he does not
lose everything. He may lose his beach home but it will not be a complete loss as he will be
compensated for it, but his mountain property will be up to what he can work out with the others.
God knows the beginning from the end and is all knowing. If Martin will trust in him then all
things will work out. Romans 8:28 says “And we know that in all things God works for the good
of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
Property 6
References
North Carolina General Assembly. (n.d.).North Carolina General Assembly. Retrieved August 2,
2015, from
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_41/GS
_41-2.pdf
North Carolina General Assembly. (n.d.).North Carolina General Assembly. Retrieved August 2,
2015, from
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_1/Articl
e_4.pdf
Eminent domain. (2014). In J. Downes and J. Goodman, Dictionary of finance and investment
terms. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series. Retrieved from
http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?
url=http://literati.credoreference.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/entry/barronsfin/e
minent_domain/0
Kelo v. New London. (2006). Congressional Digest, 85(1), 11.
Uniform Commercial Code - Article 1. (2012). LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved
August 2, 2015, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
