Property law is a rule that is usually enacted to govern over the tenancy and ownership over personal and real property. In the United States of America, the property law regulates the people who should buy property, those who possess it, and how it can be partitioned after the owners are deceased. In case the property is federally owned, the federal government determines how the land is handled.
Question 1
What interest, if any, does Betty have in Greenacre? Discuss.
Betty is the owner of Redacre. Redacre is a property that is adjacent to Greenacre. Betty's interest in Greenacre is concerned with the easement on the property. The owner of Greenacre, John, allowed Betty to access the public highway via a dirt road across Greenacre. It was the only way that Betty would access the highway from Redacre. From the dirt road, Redacre can be seen. Under the property law in the United States of America, Greenacre is not recognized as a real property of the government. Therefore, John has a say in the easement rights he granted to Betty. However, Betty did not record the valid easement agreement in case it would be needed in the future to solve a dispute such as when Greenacre is sold to a new individual.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What interest, if any, does Bank have in Greenacre? Discuss.
In the year 2016, John transferred the ownership of Greenacre to Meg. John provided all the documents required in the purchase of Greenacre and did not include the easement on property rights that allowed Betty to go through johns land as she accesses the public highway. Meg obtained a loan from the bank to help her finance the acquisition of Greenacre. She later defaulted, and the bank sought to close Greenacre for appraisal. The bank is interested in Greenacre helping them compensate the money that Meg defaulted as the $40000 she had borrowed to finance the purchase. The bank, therefore, appraised the property and realized that there was a difference between the foreclosure price and the amount that Meg owed them.
What claims, if any, may Bank assert against Meg? Discuss.
Firstly, the bank wished to sue Meg for the difference between the amount she owed to the institution and the balance left at the foreclosure, which was conducted, by the bank. After she defaulted, the bank was convinced that she was not transparent in the details she provided in the request for funding. The bank conducted the title search, but it did not perform a physical search at first. That is why it took time for the bank to realize a difference between the foreclosure price and the loan amount. The bank is also against Meg in that she did not make a mention of the easement on the property that John had previously granted to Betty to allow her to pass via Greenacre from Redacre to access the highway.
What claims, if any, may Betty assert against John and/or Meg? Discuss.
Betty may also have some claims against John. Before he sold Greenacre to Meg, he and Betty had a deal regarding the easement on the property that allowed Betty to trespass Greenacre to access the highway. As he made the sale, he did not include the easement agreement in the documents he provided during the transaction. That is to say, that each time she would pass through Greenacre after it was sold to Meg, according to the private law in the United States of America, she would be trespassing. The claim that Betty would have against Meg was her nature of not being keen enough to ask for easement agreement documents from John just in case there were some. The claims would both affect Betty negatively as far as the easement on the property is concerned.
In a declaratory relief action between bank and Betty concerning the easement, who would prevail? Discuss.
In a declaratory relief action concerning the easement between bank and Betty, the bank would prevail. First and foremost, the property law in the United States of America states that any grant or conveyance that is not recorded is void. As she was being granted the easement on the property by John to enable her to pass through Greenacre to access Redacre from the hospital, Betty was not keen enough to record the agreement. Therefore, there will be no tangible evidence that states that she had been granted the easement rights. Summatively, as John was conveying Greenacre to Meg, he did not include the easement agreement in the documents he provided. That, again, makes the easement, void since there is no evidence of it.
Question 2
Discuss all rights, remedies, and defenses that Bert, Christina, and Alex have in the lawsuit.
Rights
The three landowners have one standard, and some of their rights are specific to each one of them. One of the collective rights is the right to possess the land. The original owner of the pieces of land, Meredith sold the land to the different owners, thus giving them various rights to be the owners of the property. Bert, Christina, and Alex all have the necessary documents to prove their ownership of land as per the law in the United States of America. Christina has the right to exclusive control over her piece of land, unlike Bert and Alex. As Meredith sold the piece to Christina, she stated that Christina could use the property for whatever reason she wished. As a result, Christina opened an Italian restaurant. Bert and Alex's pieces of land had restrictions that pointed towards the land being used for residential purposes only. The three landowners have a right to dispose or transfer the pieces of land. That could happen in the form of selling the property and inheritance too. The property that Alex owns has been transferred through a number of owners from Meredith to Izzie and George who restricted the land before selling it to Alex.
Remedies
Bert was a regular customer at Christina's restaurant before he opened a ravioli stand on his plot to compete with Christina and Alex. Later on, Bert files a lawsuit to seek the withdrawal of both Christina and Alex from their businesses. The remedy on Christina's side in a lawsuit is to maintain her business. The piece of land where her Italian restaurant is located is not restricted to a particular use. Therefore, the law does not recognize Christina's business as illegally situated on her plot of land. As a result, the property law in the United States of America will stand for the retention of her Italian restaurant. The remedy on Alex's side is to bar him from the continued running of his espresso stand. The plot of land that Alex currently owns did not initially have restrictions from Meredith. After the piece was sold to George, he imposed restrictions on the land favoring the residential purposes. Thus, according to the law, Alex's business will cease. The remedy on Bert's side is to discontinue his ravioli stand. He has used his piece of land contrary to its intended residential use. Therefore, by him filing a lawsuit against Alex and Christina who are supposed to compete with him in business, he will lose his business venture in the process.
Defenses
Christina may have several arguments in the lawsuit filed against her. First and foremost, she is the legal owner of the plot of land, which she bought from Meredith. Secondly, the piece of land that Christina has put up an Italian restaurant did not have restrictions on the use of the property. Therefore, the case against Christina is likely to be lost in the point of view of Bert. Alex may also have defenses in the lawsuit against him. His plot of land has had a number of owners before him. The previous owner, George, imposed some restrictions on the use of the property for residential purposes only. Nevertheless, George did not give Alex the document that regarded the intended use of the land although the latter promptly built an espresso stand after the acquisition of property. Alex is also the rightful owner of the land that he acquired from George. Therefore, the lawsuit filed by Bert may not affect Christina's business but may affect Alex's shop.
