Real 105 Chapter 10 They Took It From Me Part 1. Study the facts: In 1982, Owen purchased Lot A and built a cabin on it.

[answerhappygod]

Real 105 Chapter 10 They Took It From Me Part 1 Study The Facts In 1982 Owen Purchased Lot A And Built A Cabin On It 1 (64.3 KiB) Viewed 31 times

Real 105 Chapter 10 They Took It From Me Part 1 Study The Facts In 1982 Owen Purchased Lot A And Built A Cabin On It 2 (73.26 KiB) Viewed 31 times

Real 105 Chapter 10 They Took It From Me Part 1 Study The Facts In 1982 Owen Purchased Lot A And Built A Cabin On It 3 (16.86 KiB) Viewed 31 times

Real 105 Chapter 10 They Took It From Me Part 1. Study the facts: In 1982, Owen purchased Lot A and built a cabin on it. Lot A was located in the mountains. Because of the extended snow season, it was only accessible during warm summer months. In 1982, Owen granted Lot A to Linda. The deed stated, "to Linda for life." Linda went to stay at the cabin each summer with her friend Jacky. In 1990, Linda died before she could visit Lot A. Owen was in Europe from 1985 to 1995. Jacky continued to visit Lot A every summer. In 1995, Owen returned to the US and went to Lot A. He discovered that Jacky was not only staying there, but had also built a second cabin on Lot A. He immediately instigated a lawsuit against Jacky for trespass. Who owned Lot A at the time of Linda's death? Write an IRAC-paragraph analyzing the issue of Life Estate. Will Owen prevail against Jacky in his trespass lawsuit? Write an IRAC-paragraph analyzing the issue of Adverse Possession. Discuss all 5 elements of Adverse Possession one at a time in the analysis part. Do not use subheadings Paul v. Darlene Issue: Adverse possession Rule: Method of acquiring real property by one other than the other requiring proof of hostile, open and notorious, actual exclusive use, continuous, and payment of taxes. Analysis: Element 1:-Jack was on Jill's property without permission. Therefore, the use was hostile. Element 2: Jill did not know Jack was on the property. But if she had conducted an inspection, she might have discovered his presence. Element 3:-It was unclear what Jack's intent was. He thought he was going on to his friend Nat's property. Element 4-Jack was there on weekends only. Thus his use was somewhat continuous. Element-5:-Jack paid the property taxes each year. Conclusion: Therefore, for lack of all 5 elements present, Jack did not acquire Blackacre by adverse possession. Continue to part 2.

Part 2. Study the case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in the textbook. This case was fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision was 5 to 4. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Read the following dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens and answer the questions on page 3 of this document. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. The debate between the Court and JUSTICE BRENNAN illustrates an extremely important point concerning government regulation of the use of privately owned real estate. Intelligent, well-informed public officials may in good faith disagree about the validity of specific types of land-use regulation. Even the wisest lawyers would have to acknowledge great uncertainty about the scope of this Court's takings jurisprudence. Yet, because of the Court's remarkable ruling in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), local governments and officials must pay the price for the necessarily vague standards in this area of the law. In his dissent in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621(1981), JUSTICE BRENNAN proposed a brand new constitutional rule. He argued that a mistake such as the one that a majority of the Court believes that the California Coastal Commission made in this case should automatically give rise to pecuniary liability for a "temporary taking." Id., at 653-661. Notwithstanding the unprecedented chilling effect that such a rule will obviously have on public officials charged with the responsibility for drafting and implementing regulations designed to protect the environment [483 U.S. 825, 867] and the public welfare, six Members of the Court recently endorsed JUSTICE BRENNAN'S novel proposal. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church, supra. I write today to identify the severe tension between that dramatic development in the law and the view expressed by JUSTICE BRENNAN's dissent in this case that the public interest is served by encouraging state agencies to exercise considerable flexibility in responding to private desires for development in a way that threatens the preservation of public resources. See ante, at 846-848. I like the hat that JUSTICE BRENNAN has donned today better than the one he wore in San Diego, and I am persuaded that he has the better of the legal arguments here. Even if his position prevailed in this case, however, it would be of little solace to landuse planners who would still be left guessing about how the Court will react to the next case, and the one after that. As this case demonstrates, the rule of liability created by the Court in First English is a shortsighted one. Like JUSTICE BRENNAN, I hope that "a broader vision ultimately prevails." Ante, at 864. I respectfully dissent.

Suppose you were a Supreme Court justice, how would you decide this case? Do you concur or dissent with Justice Scalia? Begins like this: JUSTICE [YOUR NAME], concurring or dissenting. Minimum ½ page single space.