Benji

Advice to Barney on Property
Sonya L Henderson
Liberty University

Abstract
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze various types of property ownership. Property ownership can be characterized as real, personal, joint tenancy, common tenancy, tenancy in entirety, sole ownership, and community. Ownership of property determines the right to control it, how it is used, who can benefit from it, the transfer or sell of it, and the exclusion from it. Property ownership can be shown in the issuance of a legal written instrument such as a title deed or warrant deed. There are a variety of leisure and economic benefits owning property. There are laws and statues established in order to govern the different factors pertaining to property. Discrepancies in property ownership can lead to various legal actions in civil and criminal court cases. The case study will be assessed from a legal and spiritual perspective regarding joint tenancy with right of survivorship, adverse possession, eminent domain, bailments, and good faith purchasers for value.

Barney, a retired deputy and detective in North Carolina was quite a prudent investor in various aspects of property. Different obstacles had aroused dealing with his mountain property, motor vehicle, and beach house. As Barney’s attorney and friend in Christ, advisement on the circumstances will be given. First, Barney is advised not to be anxious or worried about his property dilemmas. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight (Proverbs 3:5-6 NIV). Barney is further advised from a legal standpoint on how these property issues should be addressed.
Joint tenancy with right of survivorship Barney is the only living tenant of the mountain property from a joint tenancy with a right to survivorship that was established with his old friends Andy, Floyd, and Howard. When Andy died he left his share of the interest in the property in a will to his son Opie. Opie used his share of interest in the property as collateral on a loan he defaulted on. Now the lender have sought legal action to foreclose on the property. Barney is advised from a legal perspective he can petition for a partition by sale of the property to the court. According to a Supreme Court case that states:
When any persons entitled as tenants in common, or joint tenants, of personal property desire to have a division of property, that person may file a petition for partition in the Superior Court for that purpose; if the petitioners are entitled to relief, the property shall be divided as nearly equal as possible among the tenants in common, or joint tenants (Chadwick v. Blades, 1936, para. 612).
As Barney’s attorney, the best course of action is to divide the interest in the property in order to avoid future legal actions with Opie or the lender.
Adverse Possession Unfortunately, another obstacle had aroused regarding the mountain property. Since Barney haven’t been on the property for 20 years, a small town acquaintance named Ernest had established residence of this land. This form of action is called adverse possession. According to North Carolina state law:
No action for the recovery or possession of real property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person in possession thereof, or defendant in the action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years; and such possession so held gives a title in fee to the possessor, in such property, against all persons not under disability (N.C. Gen. Stat, 2013). Ownership in the land has been automatically vested in Ernest due to the time period of residing freely on the property and Barney has lost the property according to this law.
Eminent Domain Life for Barney continues to dwindle downward when he discovers his beach house was selected for eminent domain to build a new resort. As Barney’s attorney, he is advised the government has a Constitutional right to take private property for the benefit of general welfare for just compensation of the property being seized (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2012, p. 382). Although Barney is upset, he has to take into consideration if the end result will outweigh the means for challenging the government over eminent domain. If Barney wants to protest and proceed in a legal action, the government can start the proceedings for condemnation to acquire ownership of his property (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2012, p. 382). The town attorney has assured Barney he will get the full market value for his property in compensation. If this is not honored, Barney can proceed in legal action for fair compensation over his property. But if eminent domain is challenged in court, the end result can lead to loss of tremendous cost and time when he may eventually lose the property. Barney can take the fair compensation given to him and invest in a new beach house.
Bailments
In spite of the prior property dilemmas, Barney is able to lift his spirits up when Thelma Lou an old girlfriend reunites with him. But his sensation of enjoyment is diminished when his motor vehicle is stolen while they are at a fancy restaurant. Carl, who is an ex-employee for the restaurant fraudulently presents himself as working in valet parking. Barney drives up and gives Carl possession of his vehicle thinking he is going to park it. At this point a bailment is established. The Feay v. Miller (1948) case concluded when a car is handled by an attendant and the keys are left in the ignition, the interpretation is that possession and control has passed to the operator of the lot and it is held to be a bailment (para. 5). Barney is advised legal action in breach of bailment will probably be unsuccessful against the restaurant unless there is another responsible owner for the parking lot during the time the incident occurred. The restaurant’s liability may be low due to Carl being terminated at the time and owners may claim they are not responsible for the lot when it isn’t being utilized for valet parking.
Good Faith Purchasers for Value Supposedly after Carl steals Barney’s vehicle it is sold to the owner of a used car lot. Afterwards, the vehicle is sold again to the owner of a car show where Barney later discovered it. Barney attempts to recover his vehicle, but the owner of the show will not release it until he is reimbursed for $5600.00. Barney is advised legal action for his vehicle will probably be unsuccessful. The purchasers of Barney’s vehicle was unaware it was stolen and the transactions were made in good faith. According to a Supreme Court case which states:
In section 2-403 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Subdivision (2) thereof provides that "any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in the ordinary course of business." Subdivision (9) of section 1-201 of the UCC defines a "buyer in the ordinary course of business" as "a person who in good faith and without knowledge that the sale to him is in violation of the ownership rights or security interest of a third party in the goods buys in ordinary course from a person in the business of selling goods of that kind" (Porter v. Wertz, 1979, para 10).
Under this law the purchasers will have a strong defense. The purchasers will likely prove the transaction of the vehicle was conducted under the normal course of business between a merchant and buyer. It can be concluded ownership of Barney’s vehicle will remain in possession of the owner at the car show.
Conclusion
Barney has lost most of his property except the compensation from the beach home. Barney is advised he can start over again and operate in wisdom by prioritizing his property investments before allowing problems to arise. Barney is reminded of biblical scripture which states, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths can eat them and rust destroy them, and where thieves break in and steal; But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matthews 6: 19-20).

References
Sterling Chadwick, v. W.B. Blades and The Texas Company, A Corporation, 210 N.C. 609 (1936).

N. C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40. 2013, C.C.P., s. 23; Code, s. 144; Rev., s. 384; C.S., s. 430.
Brennan, B., Browne, M., & Kubaske, N. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach, Boston: Pearson.

Feay, v. Miller, 72 S.D. 185 (1948).
Samuel Porter et al., v. Peter Wertz et al., Individually and Trading Under the Name of Irvin Brenner Gallery, et al., Defendants, and Richard Feigen Gallery, Inc., et al., 68 A.D. 2d. 141 (1979).

References: Sterling Chadwick, v. W.B. Blades and The Texas Company, A Corporation, 210 N.C. 609 (1936). N. C. Gen. Stat. § 1-40. 2013, C.C.P., s. 23; Code, s. 144; Rev., s. 384; C.S., s. 430. Brennan, B., Browne, M., & Kubaske, N. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach, Boston: Pearson. Feay, v. Miller, 72 S.D. 185 (1948). Samuel Porter et al., v. Peter Wertz et al., Individually and Trading Under the Name of Irvin Brenner Gallery, et al., Defendants, and Richard Feigen Gallery, Inc., et al., 68 A.D. 2d. 141 (1979).