Case Study Penn Foster

Martin who had worked hard all his life and invested his money wisely in a mountain property, a coastal property and his personal property which was a 1966 Pontiac GTO, was considering cashing in these investments as he was looking forward to his retirement life. Unfortunately for him, the dream plan was not going to unfold as smoothly as he had anticipated. When it came to realizing the properties and the classic car, they came with unforeseen set of issues. As his attorney we will review each issue and provide legal advice to Martin on how to proceed. Also as sister in Christ to encourage him to keep his eyes on the Lord no matter how overwhelming the situations may seem.
The first issue is of the property he co-owned with three friends

Even though he identified himself as the owner and had the deed to prove it, the person who was now living on this property as his own, Otis, did not care and told Martin to “Git off my land”. Otis’ justification was he had lived on this property openly for twenty years and as far as he is concerned this is his property. Unfortunately for Martin, this property now belongs to Otis legally under “Adverse Possession” as he has built a cabin and lived there openly for some twenty years. Which means, “Acquiring ownership of realty by openly treating it as one’s own, with neither protest nor permission from the real owner, for a statutorily established period of time. (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p. 777) Under the State of North Carolina statutes, the adverse possessor can get title to real property after using it in an "actual, open, hostile, exclusive and continuous" manner for 20 years. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/hottopics/lnacademic/. It further says in the State of North Carolina NC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 4 Limitations, Real Property. § 1-40. Twenty years adverse possession, 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

Martin’s afford to speak to the city attorney and to reason with him failed. The attorney informed Martin, since it was being taken by eminent domain there is nothing he could do to help him from the city taking his property. He was assured the city would pay fair market value for the property. The property is going to be part of the plan to expand to build a new resort which would bring businesses and jobs to the community. We would advice Martin to take the money the city is offering for his property as under the eminent domain the city would win the court case. Under eminent domain, the government offers to purchase the property. If the owner objects to the transfer or the price, the government institutes condemnation proceedings. If the court determines that the governmental purpose is legitimate, it then determines the fair market value of the property. Once this price has been paid, ownership is transferred to the government. (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015, p. 360). The case of Kelo v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. Supreme Court of the United States 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), Judge Steven, ruled in favor of the City of New London. He stated, The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including—but by no means limited to—new