An owner in fee simple is entitled to use, possess, or dispose of the property as he or she chooses during his or her lifetime, and on this owner’s death, the interests in the property descend to his or her heirs.
In a joint tenancy , each of two or more persons owns an undivided interest in the property, and a deceased joint tenant’s interest passes to the surviving joint tenant or tenants. This right distinguishes the joint tenancy from the tenancy in common.
An owner in fee simple is entitled to use, possess, or dispose of the property as he or she chooses during his or her lifetime, and on this owner’s death, the interests in the property descend to his or her heirs. A tenancy in common is a form of co-ownership in which each of two or more persons owns an undivided interest in the whole property. On the death of a tenant in common, that tenant’s interest passes to her or his heirs. In a joint tenancy , each of two or more persons owns an undivided interest in the property, and a deceased joint tenant’s interest passes to the surviving joint tenant or tenants. This right distinguishes the joint tenancy from the tenancy in common.
Both the joint tenancy and tenancy by the entirety require that certain preconditions
First, the owners of the estate must have both received their interests at the same time ( unity of time ).
Second, the owners of the estate must both draw their title from the same deed or document ( unity of title ).
Third, the owners of the estate must have equal interests in the land ( unity of interest ).
Fourth, the owners must have an unrestricted right to use the entire property ( unity of possession ).
A tenancy in common may exist without any of these unities except that relating to the unity of possession because tenants in common, despite the unevenness of their respective interests in the property, still have the right to use the entire property.
Often, when a couple decides to marry, one party gives the other an engagement ring. If the engagement is called off, typically the ring is returned. Yet what if the recipient of the ring refuses to return it and a dispute over who owns the ring reaches a court? What law should apply in determining ownership rights in this particular form of personal property? In the eyes of the law, is an engagement ring a “conditional gift” that becomes effective only when the couple actually marries? Or is it an effective gift to begin with, meaning that it belongs to the person to whom it was given—the donee? Furthermore, does ownership of the ring depend on who breaks the engagement?
Some courts hold that an engagement ring is a conditional gift that becomes an absolute (effective) gift only on marriage. Other courts conclude that when an engagement ring is given to the donee, the donee should have full ownership rights in the property.
Michigan - $19k ring – prenuptial agreement - Court ruled for male -conditional gift that becomes final only if the marriage occurs
PA - $17k ring – PA Supreme Court ruled temporary gift that becomes absolute only when the marriage takes place.
Courts in Kansas, Ohio, New York, and New Mexico have held likewise.
Montana Supreme Court held a $29k ring did belong to the female… “transfer of personal property made voluntarily and without consideration.”
Mislaid Property: Voluntary placed somewhere, then inadvertently forgotten. Finder is steward for true owner. – Finder does not obtain title to the property, but rather holds it in trust for the true owner. If the property is later found, the original owner becomes legal owner
Lost Property: Involuntarily left. Property owner acquires title against whole world, except for true owner. Finder must return to true owner or be liable for conversion.
Abandoned Property: Discarded by true owner with no intention of recovering. Acquires title against all the world, including the original owner.
The well-known children’s adage, “Finders keepers, losers weepers,” is actually written into law—provided that the loser (the rightful owner) cannot be found. A finder of lost personal property may acquire good title to the property against everyone except the true owner.
A number of landmark cases have made this principle clear.
A gratuitous Bailment; Bailee owes Bailor a low duty of care , liable only for gross negligence. (Video) Vinny is the bailee, he benefited from using the rug cleaner.
Bailment for the sole benefit of the Bailee:
Bailee owes Bailor a high duty of care and is liable for even slight negligence. – Because the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, Vinny will be held to a higher standard of care and will be liable for damages caused by even slight negligence.
Mutual Benefit Bailment: most common.
Each party owes the other a reasonable duty of care.
The facts state that Vinny did not bother to vacuum the rug, pick up the large objects off his floor (tennis ball, items of clothing), or move the furniture prior to using the rug-cleaning machine. Clearly, Vinny’s careless use of the equipment would establish that he was negligent and failed to exercise the high degree of care that he was required to use in this situation. (In fact, it would probably even be negligent under the reasonable standard of care that would be applied if a person had rented the equipment.) The standard a court would apply in this situation was correctly stated by Oscar in the video—Vinny should have treated the machine as if it were Oscar’s (the supermarket’s) and not his own. The court will hold Vinny liable for any damage that his carelessness caused to the rug-cleaning machine.
Bailments: Duty of Care Benefit of Bailor Benefit of Bailee Low Duty of Care High Duty of Care Reasonable Care Mutual Benefit
Recording a deed ( or any interest in real property ) puts the public on notice of the new owner’s interest in the land and prevents the previous owner from fraudulently conveying the same interest to another buyer.
A will is the final declaration of the disposition that a person desires to have made of his or her property after death. A will is referred to as a testamentary disposition of property. It is a formal instrument that must follow exactly the requirements of the appropriate state’s statutes to be effective. A will becomes effective only upon the death of the testator.
Burning, tearing, canceling, etc, etc, at the maker’s direction
Revocation by a Subsequent Writing.
A new will may revoke a prior will, depending on the language. If there are inconsistent dispositions, the second will controls.
Revocation By Operation of Law.
A marriage, divorce or annulment, or the birth of children after a will has been executed generally revokes a will. Depending on State laws, new children get intestate shares, and an ex-spouse gets nothing.
Basic requirements for executing a will include testamentary capacity and intent, a writing, the testator’s signature, witnesses’ attestation, and in some states publication
The will’s maker may revoke a will by a physical act, including by writing a later will. Wills can also be revoked by operation of law, which includes marriage, divorce, annulment, and the birth of a child