Thoughts on the Legally and Spiritually Handling of the Situation - Case Study Example

It also creates the Right of Survivorship that provides that if one tenant passes away, the rest of the property goes to those who survive (Hinkel, 2012). According to joint tenancy, Andy and Barney owned the same interest in the whole property with an equal share, and the estate was vested for the period of their lifetime. In addition, both Andy and Barney enjoyed similar rights until one passed away.

Under the right of survivorship, when Andy died, the remainder of the entire property was automatically transferred to Barney. However, there could be a catch since it is not clear whether Barney had recorded an affidavit as to the death of Andy. It is true that, upon the death of Andy, Barney had the right of survivorship which ensured Barney got the title to the entire property. The procedure is that, in Andy’s death, the title was to be transferred to Barney after the recording of this affidavit, which describes the dead tenant and property, as well as an attached death certificate (Hinkel, 2012).

I do agree with the advice, as long as Barney had recorded the affidavit of death of Andy, who was the joint tenant. Adverse Possession In this case, I concur with the advice given. In adverse possession, a person can gain legal title through open, actual, continuous, and hostile possession of land to the owner’s exclusion (Jourdan & Radley-Gardney, 2010). In a case, such as this, where the possession is open and notorious, Ernst possessed the property openly in the middle of the property where the neighbors could see and act as all true owners of the land would.

While occupying Barney’s land, Ernst did not do so secretly such as to deny him any legal rights to the land. Ernst improved the land by building a cabin and fencing it, which was demonstrative of open and notorious possession. Essentially, building his cabin there without any resistance is the most notorious and open possession. While it is true that Barney did not know Ernst’s adverse use of his land, Ernst’s possession is so notorious and open that it is impossible the neighbors around the property have no idea of his living there (Jourdan & Radley-Gardney, 2010).

It is not also possible to expect Ernst to give the land back even after he had been put on notice that the land would be reclaimed as shown by his behavior when Barney tried to access the property, which indicates that Ernst intends to keep possession. I agree that they should overlook the law of adverse possession. Bailment and Conversion I agree that Barney cannot be found liable for any charges requested by the seller at the classic car show. Bailment involves the temporary placing by a bailor of control of personal property in the hands of a bailee for a particular purpose on which the two have agreed (Ashcroft & Ashcroft, 2011).

In this case, Barney was the bailer while the valet was the bailee. Bailment is a contractual relationship because the two, either impliedly or expressly bind to act to specific terms. In this case, the valet only received control of the car while Barney retained an ownership interest. While the valet’s interest in the car, during the bailment period, was superior to that of Barney, he violated the agreement by exchanging Barney’s car and breaking their agreement.