I think your analysis is solid. I agree that upon Peter’s death, Martin is the sole property owner. I like how you pointed out that the gesture to transfer Peter’s property to Andrew “contradicts the legal agreement of joint tenancy.”
I think there is validity to your assertions that Otis is a trespasser and for Martin to start the eviction process. I also like the suggestion of pursuing a lease with Otis. However, I believe that Otis may actually have ownership of the property regarding adverse possession. According to North Carolina General Statues § 1-40 (2014) “[n]o action for the recovery or possession of real property…shall be maintained when the person in possession thereof…has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years…” (North Carolina General Assembly, 2014a). Therefore, Martin’s lack of visitation to the property in a 20 year span of time adversely gave Otis possession of the parcel since he has claimed to have lived there for “some 20 years”. Obviously, a court would have to adjudicate.
…show more content…
As Guidry and Do (1998) pointed out “...owners of such proeprties [sic] may see the action of taking as unjust…” (p. 232). Clearly, Martin was agitated at the eminent domain claim. Although the city offered to pay fair market value, I believe the city intent to use the property was not in compliance with North Carolina General Statues § 40A-3 (2014) which spelled out specific examples that land could be seized for public enterprises (North Carolina General Assembly, 2014b). From the case study information, the city’s intent was for a private venture – not a public