Answered: Irene and Joy were co-owners of a… | bartleby

Related questions

Question

Irene and Joy were co-owners of a parcel of
land. On September 26, 2020, Irene
discovered that Joy has sold her share to Yeri
on August 25, 2020. The following day, Irene
offered to redeem her share from Yeri, but the
latter replied that Irene's right to redeem has
already prescribed. Is Yeri correct?

Expert Solution

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Blurred answer

Similar questions

D established a trust for the benefit of her three adult children, appointing herself as trustee. Under the terms of the trust, the income was to be divided equally among the three, except that D retained the right to vary the distribution or invade the corpus to provide for "medical emergencies, professional education, and inability of any beneficiary to support himself or herself." At D's death, the trust terminates and the corpus is distributed to Y or Y's estate. What are the likely consequences of this trust at D's death? The value of the trust corpus will be excluded from her gross estate under sections 2036 and 2038 because the "ascertainable standard" rule of Jennings v. Smith and Old Colony Trust applies. The value of the trust corpus is included in her gross estate under sections 2036 and 2038 simply because she is the grantor of the trust. The value of the trust corpus is included in her gross estate under section 2033. The value of the trust corpus will be included in her…
Sam and Eleanor Gaito purchased a home from Howard Frank Auman, Jr., in the spring of 2011. Auman had completed the construction of the house in November 2006. In the interim, three different parties had lived in the house for brief periods, but Auman had retained ownership. The last tenants, the Ashleys, experienced difficulties with the home’s air conditioning system. Repairs were attempted, but no effort was made to change the capacity of the air conditioning unit. When the Gaitos moved into the house in June 2011, they too had problems with the air conditioning. The system created only a ten-degree difference between the outside and inside temperatures. The Gaitos complained to Auman on a number of occasions, but extensive repairs failed to correct the cooling problem. In May 2014, the Gaitos brought an action against Auman, alleging that the purchase price of the home included central air conditioning and that Auman had breached the implied warranty of habitability. At trial, an…
Martha sells goods to James for $25,000. Martha assigns her right to receive the $25,000 to XYZ Finance James refuses to pay XYZ the $25,000. James makes two arguments for not paying. First James claims that XYZ has no privity of contract and that XYZ is not a third-party beneficiary of its contract with Martha. Second – James claims that the goods were worthless. Assume that the goods were worthless. You are the judge. Who wins and why? Address both arguments that James makes.
Quasi Contracts. Chad Parker owned an acre of property and a mobile home on that property. Hesold the mobile home to David and Allison Wilson for $1,000 and sold the property to them for$10,000. These agreements were made orally. No title or deed transfers took place. The Wilsonslived in the mobile home for seven years, making $11,228.19 of improvements to the structureand to the property. After a falling out between Chad and David, Chad had the Wilsons evictedand moved back into the mobile home. Because there was no written contract between theparties, could Chad therefore legally evict the Wilsons and legally move back into the mobilehome?
John owns a small rental cottage in St Augustine and his mother Brenda lives nearby in a rented apartment. He is concerned about her having a secure home to live in after her retirement so he decides to convey the cottage to her for the rest of her life, after which, ownership will revert to him. What would John's attorney probably have advised him to do to achieve these goals? Establish a Trust with his mother as one of the trustees Convey a tenancy at sufferance to Brenda. Convey a tenancy by the entireties to Brenda, pur autre vie. О Convey a life estate to Brenda with the right of reversion to John.
Professor Shott buys a Porsche against the wishes of his much more intelligent wife. Professor Shott soon realizes his mistake when he starts to make the car payments. Jane, a very wealthy 17 year old, offers to buy the Porsche and Professor Shott accepts. Now assume that before she turns 18 Jane gets in an accident and badly damages the Porsche causing $20,000 in damage. Assume she originally paid Professor Shott $50,000 for the car. If Jane now seeks to return the damaged car what is the result? Professor Shott must refund Jane his money minus the amount of the damages. Professor Shott does not have to refund Jane anything. Professor Shott can demand it be repaired before giving Jane a refund. Professor Shott must refund Jane 100% of his money even though he damaged the car.
Jensen purchased a six-room house for himself and his daughter. Jensen wishes to have a deed that states that, in case of the death of either of them, the other is to own the house. What form of ownership should Jensen choose?
Alan’s real estate broker suggested that he use a quitclaim deed to sell his super cool Brentwood condo so that the buyer would: Be the grantor under the deed and have full recourse against the seller for any title related claims Acquire only the legal interest in the property that Alan previously held Know that all prior mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances had either been reconveyed or removed from the property’s title Receive assurance that the property was free from any title defects
a WI Thi aw poin loqua yd olM : Jane was tired of living in the jungle with Tarzan and entered into a sales contract to purchase a small house from Tarzan that he had inherited. Tarzan later changed his mind, because he liked Jane swinging in the trees with him. If Jane decides to seek legal assistance to acquire the house, which remedy should she ask for? O Quantum meruit O Promissory estoppel O Specific performance O Legal ejectment dead art
Eric and Susan just purchased their first home, which cost $140,000. They purchased a homeowner’s policy to insure the home for $130,000 and personal property for $80,000. They declined any coverage for additional living expenses. The deductible for the policy is $500. Soon after Eric and Susan moved into their new home, a strong windstorm caused damage to their roof. They reported the roof damage to be $19,500. While the roof was under repair, the couple had to live in a nearby hotel for three days. The hotel bill amounted to $420. Assuming the insurance company settles claims using the replacement value method, what amount will the insurance company pay for the damages to the roof?
Eileen Murphy often cared for her elderly neighbor, Thomas Kenney. He paid her $25 per day for her help and once gave her a bank certificate of deposit worth $25,000. She spent the money. Murphy alleged that shortly before his death, Kenney gave her a large block of shares in three corporations. He called his broker, intending to instruct him to transfer the shares to Murphy’s name, but the broker was ill and unavailable. So Kenney told Murphy to write her name on the shares and keep them, which she did. Two weeks later Kenney died. When Murphy presented the shares to Kenney’s broker to transfer ownership to her, the broker refused because Kenney had never endorsed the shares as the law requires, that is, signed them over to Murphy. Was Murphy entitled to the $25,000? To the shares?
On March 1, Joseph sold to Sandra fifty acres of land in Oregon, which Joseph at the time represented to be fine black loam, high, dry, and free of stumps. Sandra paid Joseph the agreed price of $140,000 and took from him a deed to the land. Subsequently discovering that the land was low, swampy, and not entirely free of stumps, Sandra nevertheless undertook to convert the greater part of the land into cranberry bogs. After one year of cranberry culture, Sandra became entirely dissatisfied, tendered the land back to Joseph, and demanded from Joseph the return of the $140,000. Upon Joseph’s refusal to repay the money, Sandra brings an action against him to recover the $140,000. What judgment?

SEE MORE QUESTIONS