1-CASE NAME Ofallon v. OfallonA. Legal Cognizance1. Facts.docx

1-CASE NAME: O'fallon v. O'fallon
A. Legal Cognizance
1. Facts:
· The father of 3 children passed away, the eldest son who had
authority over the handling of the will gathered the assets
(which included a car recently delivered to the 17 year old son.
Ronnie (the 17 year old) filed a motion to retrieve the car,
stating it was intended as a gift from his father. the court sided
with Ronnie (overturned by the state supreme court due to lack
of jurisdiction who reversed the choice, then the case was sent
to a different court which again reversed the ruling in Ronnie's
favor.
a. Briefly describe the facts.
· the car was bought, gifted, delivered, and accepted, all with
the intent of the car belonging to Ronnie, he being 17 at the
time could not hold the title,but was capable of using and
owning the car
b. Which facts were key to the outcome?
· Ronnie did not acquire title to car (was a minor at age of 17
and couldn't hold title)
· Mother / loan officer stated the father bought it as a gift
· the father did not maintain a key to the car
· the car was delivered to Ronnie
· The intent was the car was to be a gift
2. Legal issue:
· GIFTING (along with the accompanied delivery, acceptance,
and intent of the gift)
a. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is
this case in the chapter)?
· GIFTING: the father purchased the item with the intent to give
it to the son free of charge.
· DELIVERY: after delivery of the gift, the father had nothing
to do with the car
· ACCEPTANCE: the boy clearly accepted the gift, using it as

solely his.
· INTENT: the party never gave the title to the minor, but
established the cars possession with the boy through his clear
intent
b. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that
this case illustrates? For instance, if the case is about undue
influence, list ALL of the elements that the court in this case
said had to be proven by the plaintiff.
· The primary concern was whether or not the car was a gift
(which was proven by testimonies of four different people),
along with gifting was the discussion of the intent of the father,
who through the testimonies of witnesses was found to have
purely bought the car for his son only. It also touched upon the
brief delivery of the car and the separation of the father from
the car at the time of acceptance.
Repeat 2. for each issue raised. (For example, a case may
discuss 1. Whether there is an implied-in-fact contract, and II.
Whether the UCC or common law applied. If so, you will
repeat 2. for each of these two issues.)
B. Expand Perspective, Gain Interpersonal Understanding, and
Critically Assess Implications
· My question was with the mother being around, why was she
not placed in charge of the family matters concerning the will?
instead the matters were left to speculative and subjective
assumptions concerning the fathers assets.
3. Prevailing party’s point of view:
· The car was expressly given to the son as a gift, for him and
him only. the gift was an Inter Vivos gift.
a. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party?
· The father had bought the car with the intent of gifting, taken
out a loan (verified) with the intent of gifting, delivered the car,
and accepted by Ronnie, whereupon the father then separated
himself from the car in all major ways. this information was all
backed by reliable witnesses and family members.
b. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical
principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party?

· The car was in every way possible meant to be in Ronnies
hands only, the instructions and intentions were as express and
clear as could possibly be. The only possible claim the older
son could make is that Ronnie didn't have the title (not allowed
until 17) which would not hold up in court.
· Inter Vivos gifts must be: 1)donor must have a sound mind
2)delivery must happen 3)delivery with intention 4)gift
released to donee 5)donee accepts gift. (all these conditions
were met)
c. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing
party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute?
· The car was a valuable tool being in college, providing
transportation to and from class, it also likely held a large
sentimental value to Ronnie, as it was gifted just days before
the death. In every way shape and form he likely felt entitled to
this car and its benefits.
Repeat 3. for each and every issue in the case.
4. Losing party’s point of view:
· Only main argument they made was that it was not a gift.
a. What legal arguments were made by the losing party?
· Only argument they made was that it was not a gift (no other
reasoning was given or provided other than the title and
insurance was with the father and in his name).
principles would support a ruling for the losing party?
· The only plausible case the administrator of the will could
have was that the title was not with Ronnie, even then this
argument wouldn't hold up since Ronnie cant have the title until
he reaches the age of majority/legal age. Social policy dictates
if someone is gifted something lawfully, it then belongs to
them.
· One other semi valid argument was the insurance for the car
was in the fathers name instead of Ronnies (which happens a lot
during minority)
c. What were the probable motivations behind the losing

· The truck likely represented a valuable asset
the administrator could use in terms of splitting up the assets
fairly, because the transaction was made just days before death
it likely left a lot of unanswered questions as to the true owner
of the truck.
5. Judge’s point of view:
· All 5 critical aspects (inter vivos gift) of a gift were met
clearly, thus the truck was Ronnies.
a. How did the court rule on each argument?
· All 5 gift aspects were met
· the insurance was in the fathers name (normal when dealing
with a child)
· the testimonies verified the facts.
principles did the court use to support its ruling?
· The primary reasoning focused on the 5 factors that make up
the inter vivos gift, all of these applied and solidified Ronnies
ownership. Though there may have been some legal loopholes
the administrator could have sought to pursue, Ethically there
was no reasoning that could have been presented to say the car
wasn't Ronnies. The father expressly gifted it.
c. What were the probable motivations behind the judge’s
decision?
· The car not only meant a great deal to the young boy, but it
was clearly intended for his sole use and ownership. The judge
also acted in a way that avoided diving the interests of
this family.
Repeat 5. for each ruling made by the judge.
C. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories,
Synthesize, and Compare
· When it comes to family disputations of wills, it seems as if
most judges and courts tread lightly on making decisions,
almost as if they're encouraging the family to settle it among
themselves to avoid hostile feelings from coming into play. not
many of these cases actually seem to end up in court,

fortunately they mostly end up in working things out in private.
6. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court
adopted a different legal rule?”
· Had the court viewed the insurance issuance to the father as an
indication that the father maintained a portion of
ownership they may have sided differently.
a. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article
or call an attorney or business professional who may have
experience with this type of issue. Write a brief one-paragraph
summary of this case or article:
· The 3 children of Martin Luther King are currently going to
mediation for the dispute over their fathers historic bible he
used in some civil rights speeches. the brothers have been given
authority, but the daughter is in possession claiming it was
given to her by her father. they decision to settle has yet to be
made, but will soon proceed.
b. Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and
cases. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a
legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read,
analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some
neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the
recent cases you found are different, can you make sense of the
different outcomes? Are there different legal standards that
make for different outcomes? Is there a trend leaning more in
favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes
the same or different simply because the facts are similar or
dissimilar? What accounts for the same or different results?
Write your thoughts here:
· As a manager It would be difficult to deal with disputes with
co workers and employees. As an administrator its vital to take
care of assignments and details about who owns and is
responsible for what. While most of these types of disputes are
settled outside of the court room every so often it requires us to
go head to head with people we care about.
D. Creative, Application and Critical Thinking Questions
· Why was the authority given to the son to administer the

dealings of the will, when the mother still was alive and well?
that is my major question. Similarly, why was she unable to
settle the disputation as a family rather than in court? my only
thinking could be that she was either divorced, or had little
dealings with her children due to some dispute.
7. Your point of view of the case in the book:
· All major details (aside from the insurance in the fathers
name) favored on the minors side and proved that the car indeed
was a gift. Added with the clear and unified statements from
various parties, this case was a sure lock for Ronnie.
a. Do you agree or disagree with the actual outcome? Why or
why not?
· I agree 100 %, the car was so clearly and expressly meant for
Robbie there can be no disputation about it. While i'm sure the
asset would have been helpful for him as the admin to the will,
it was the lawful and ethical thing to do to give him the car.
b. Change it up: Pose the question “What if the facts were
different?” Create changes to the facts that would probably
result in a different outcome of the case and, using critical
thinking and legal reasoning, tell why your change in facts
would make a difference.
· Had the Father borrowed the car on a few times or maintained
ownership of one of the keys the courts may have ruled the car
was a shared asset.
c. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or
to the experience someone else has shared with you.
· Occasionally as a kid our dad would leave candy on the
counter for us children, naturally each of us liked a variety of
different kinds. not knowing which type of candy was for each
of us we would grab the one we wanted, thus sometimes leaving
one of us children with an unwanted type/brand of candy. Had
he expressly made clear which type belonged to who these
tragic situations could have been avoided haha.
d. How will you apply the lessons from this case to your
future career?
· when it comes to passing on assets to others, it is critical it be

duly noted so that no oversights or accusations could be made.
e. Write recommendations to avoid future legal problems and
that best suit the objectives of a firm or company in your chosen
career field.
· In the accounting firm its critical to correctly mark and
categorize all balances in their proper classification group,
doing so will help avoid confusion when presenting financial
statements to owners and investors.
2-CASE NAME: FREEMAN V. BARRS
A. Legal Cognizance
1. Facts:
· Freeman Sold property to Barrs, containing residences and
barns, within one of these barns was a cattle scale/printer that
freeman is suing to recover (annexation) the scale removed from
the property. Barrs claims the scale is a "fixture" witch now
belongs to the new buyer.
a. Briefly describe the facts.
· The contract between the two sides indicated that "all property
includes any and all rights privileges, and easements
appurtenant thereto, together with all existing buildings,
improvements, and affixed equipment and fixtures" among many
other items", additionally it states that all non affixed items
belong to the seller.
· Freeeman purchased the scale with the intent for it to be
portable (which it was designed to do), though it was locked
into cement, with a fence surrounding it. Freeman did have a
plan for removal though.
b. Which facts were key to the outcome?
· Plaintiff didn't purchase accompanying equipment that would
have been used to remove the scale. The installation also
seemed so permanent that the personal property (chattel)
became real property and a permanent fixture. The scale was
also used for the operation of the ranch.
2. Legal issue: Real Property Vs. Personal Property, Fixtures.
a. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is this
case in the chapter)?

· TANGIBLE PROPERTY: Real property (belonging to the
land) or Personal property (belonging to the initial owner)
· Fixtures: personal property (can travel with previous owner)
b. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that this
case illustrates? For instance, if the case is about undue
· PERSONAL PROPERTY: The plaintiff made it clear that the
scale was purchased with the original intent of removing it at
some point, that although it was cemented and fenced in, it was
capable of being removed. The court ruled that they must
determine if the scale had become a fixture by: 1) Annexation to
the realty 2) adaptation to use 3)intent for object to become a
permanent fixture in the land.
· Ultimately the last two items were deemed most important.
· The scale was an essential element in the property and the
property's purpose (cattle ranch business), without the scale
business could neither proceed or maintain stability as the
animals may become sick or unsellable. Due to the permanent
placement of concrete and fencing, it was a fixture (Real
Property).
a. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party?
· The prevailing groups only point was that the scale and
accompanying printer was an essential part of the property, and
the way it was installed and never changed, it had become a
permanent fixture to the barn and property.
principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party? x
· The selling party of the property had no interest in the scale
other than its monetary value, he never dealt with the ranch, and
assigned others to take care of it for him. This indicates to me
he had no use for the scale other than to sell it or use it on
another property.

· While he may have intended to permanently use the scale he
acted in a way that indicated the fixture should be permanent
(tools to remove, trailer, cement ramp, cement surrounding,
fencing around the scale). Additionally, the terms within the
contract are as the court says "unambiguous" and lack clarity
when it came to the scale, because the courts will not enforce or
create documentation to enforce the contract it needed to remain
with the property due to the plaintiffs actions.
· The scale was so vastly important to the ranch and its day to
day operations (keeping the cattle healthy, at proper weight,
proper weight to be sold) that without the business and land
would suffer without it. Additionally, the wining side likely
viewed the scale as a permanent fixture even though it was not
expressed in the contract. When they were evaluating the land
for purchase, and they saw the scale entrenched in cement they
likely would have assumed it would remain with the property
upon purchase.
· Once the dispute ended they were likely fully satisfied and
able to continue with business and life as if the entire dispute
had never happened.
4. Losing party’s point of view: The scale/printer was put in
with the intention of removing it at some point in time, and that
they had the right to annex the item at will.
a. What legal arguments were made by the losing party?
· Annexation was there legal right (due to the fact they thought
it was personal property), as was the original intention upon
purchase and installation.
· The scale was designed to be removed, he had the intent of
removing it since day 1, the contract states all personal property
is reserved by the seller. Ultimately I believe he was penalized
for an honest mistake of not putting in express writing the scale

was to be his, as well as not purchasing the equipment to
remove, and the fact he surrounded the scale with permanent
items designed to keep it there. While I feel bad for him in
some ways, the scale is a necessity for the farm to operate, and
the way it was installed indicated it was a fixture to the land.
· He either wanted to reuse the scale for himself on another
property, or sell it for profit. They had after all put in great
work and money into installing the asset, they would have
wanted to continue its benefits as was the plan.
5. Judge’s point of view: The item was a fixture & real
property, due to the actions of the seller the scale and printer
was to remain on the land with the buyer. Additionally the
contract language was not clear on the categorization of the
scale, and would not force a change to the contract.
a. How did the court rule on each argument?
· The item was a fixture on the land
· The sellers actions (INTENT) illustrated he had no intention
of removing the scale, despite his testimony to annex the item.
· The scale had been adapted into the land for the purpose of
ranching cattle, without it the business could not function.
· The item was a fixture on the land (based on the contract,
actions, and intent of the seller)
·
· The sellers actions (INTENT) illustrated he had no intention
of removing the scale, despite his testimony to annex the item.
Had he put more effort into clarifying or illustrating beforehand
that the item was removable, the court may have sided with
him.
· The scale had been adapted into the land for the purpose of
ranching cattle, without it the business could not function. ( to
take away the scale, which appeared to be a permanent tool for
the ranch upon selling would essentially undercut the cattle

ranchers and their respective business.
decision?
· The contract lacked specificity in terms of ownership, the
actions didn't correlate to the intent to remove the scale, and the
scale was pivotal the ranches operations. To allow the
annexation and removal of the scale would literally undercut the
buyer and its business. the ultimate nail in the coffin was the
lack of appearance of intent of the seller (despite the testimony
given).
· One of the newer disputes that has come up in fixture disputes
is the length of time between transaction, some parties tend to
allow an unreasonable amount of time to pass before coming
back to attempt the annexation of the personal object. from what
it appears in my research the courts are leaning towards the
current owner due to the large time gap in failing to claim the
item in a reasonable amount of time.
· Had the court evaluated the products specifications closer to
see that the product was made with the capability of being
moved, and taken his testimony into account, they may have
sided with Freeman that it was indeed personal property and
subject to annexation.
a. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article
or call an attorney or business professional who may have
· In June of 2016, a dispute concerning an aged loaned out
sculpture came about disputing the ownership of the item.
Though the court took place in London, the arguments were
very similar (was it a chattel or permanent fixture?). Ultimately
the judge decided that although the item was a chattel, it had
now belonged to the park through the process of conversion and

because of the time elapsed from previous ownership (along
with lack of documentation).
· This was a avoidable case based off of simple mistakes and
assumptions by both parties, had clear definitions been issued
beforehand the situation would have never escalated.
why not?
· While I feel for Freeman and his honest mistake, i fully agree
that the annexation could not take place. Ultimately it would
have ruined the cattle business and the whole reason the land
was purchased by the Barrs in the first place. All indications
showed that the scale would remain with the ranch, thus
ethically it should.
· Had the Barrs discussed the status of the scale during before
purchasing the land, they would have gone into it knowing the
risk.
c. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or to
the experience someone else has shared with you.
· We all jump into purchases or deals at some point in time,
failing to read the full disclosure on the terms or conditions of
the item or rental. Often times the details of the agreement dont
trun out to be what we thought they were. (Rental car terms
come to my mind).
future career?
· Clearly classify ownership and personal property, avoid
assumptions, and if an outcome is desired we should show the
intent/desire for it to happen.

career field.
· As a future accountant its essential to disclose all material
assets and ownership to avoid assumptions and confusion. The
safety/damage is often in the details!!!
3-CASE NAME: __Kelo v. City of New London____
A. Legal Cognizance
Facts:
1. Briefly describe the facts.
The city of New London approved a development plan that was
“projected to create in excess of one thousand jobs, to increase
tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically
distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.”
The project was to be built by private developers, who would
replace a “faded residential neighborhood” with various for
residential and commercial spaces. In gathering the land
required for this project, the power of eminent domain was
proposed to acquire the remaining 15 properties needed. The
unwilling owners filed a suit claiming this would violate the
“public use” restriction.
1. Which facts were key to the outcome?
The project would provide economic benefits, and the project
was being built by a public company.
2. Legal issue:
3. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is this
Public use.

1. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that this
Public use is interpreted by most states to mean “public
advantage.” This gives the power of eminent domain to private
companies when the result would be advantageous to the public
as a whole.
2. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party?
The city of New London claims that because economic benefit
will arise out the project, the use of eminent domain is valid
with just compensation.
1. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical
The broadness of the application of public use and the fact that
this project’s benefit to the public is very apparent aids the
prevailing party.
1. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing
The city needs this land to complete their project to better the
community overall.
5. What legal arguments were made by the losing party?
The owners of the properties claim that this is not an acceptable
public use to give the private company the right to take their

land, even with just compensation.
The property owners attempted to use the fact that eminent
domain would be given to a private company, that the only
benefit was economic and not reason enough to take their
property, and that allowing the use of eminent domain
“impermissibly blurs the boundary between public and private
takings.”
1. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s
actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute?
They obviously did not want to be forced out of their property
for the sake of development that might not be as successful as it
was proposed to be.
6. How did the court rule on each argument?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled with the Supreme Court of
Connecticut that the city’s proposed takings were valid.
The application of public use and the presence of apparent
economic development in light of this project being completed.
1. What were the probable motivations behind the judge’s
decision?
The courts made clear that their job was not to determine the
wisdom of allowing the properties to be taken, but to determine
whether a valid public service would result from the plan. They
sided with the city because “promoting economic development
is a traditional and long accepted function of government,” thus
validating the public use circumstances in this case.
C. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize,
and Compare

6. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court adopted
a different legal rule?”
1. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article or
call an attorney or business professional who may have
A similar case is found in Bauder v. Delaware County. This
case involves Delaware County using eminent domain to take
land from Scott and Kathy Bauder in order to extend Sawmill
Parkway into the Delaware city limits. The Bauder’s argued
that there was already adequate roadways, but ultimately the
courts ruled that the city could take the land in return for a total
payment of $950,000 to the Bauder’s.
1. Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and
Based on these two cases and my personal experience, it seems
like the courts are consistent in allowing eminent domain when
a municipality presents a benefit for the public as a whole
before siding with personal individuals fighting for their right
to keep their land.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the actual outcome? Why or
why not?

I agree with the courts in this case, but it’s difficult because 15
property owners will have lost their property despite the fact
that they don’t want to give the property up to the city. I’ve
seen a situation like this first-hand, and seeing the ultimate
proof of the benefits that come from making a hard decision
such as this, I have to side with the county.
1. Change it up: Pose the question “What if the facts were
If the project was not expected to provide such a substantial
number of jobs and increased revenue, the city might not have
had the approval of the courts in saying they were not violating
the public use application.
-How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future
career?
Be aware of the consequences of eminent domain and what
makes the application of public use valid and invalid.
1. Write recommendations to avoid future legal problems and
career field.
Governmental accountants must be cautious when determining
the economic effect of a project that might involve applying
public use to allow eminent domain
4- CASE NAME: __VonHoldt v. Barba & Barba Construction,
Inc.____
A. Legal Cognizance
1. Facts:

In 1982, Barba & Barba Construction, Inc. constructed a 900
square feet addition to a single-family house in Glenview,
Illinois. In 1993, John VonHoldt purchased the house and
noticed a “deflection of the wood flooring at the partition wall
separating the master bedroom from an adjoining bathroom”
that caused a depression in the floor plane. An investigation
revealed the construction by Barba was not built to code.
VonHoldt claimed the depression was significant and concealed
by the thick carpet, and he filed a suit against Barba.
Key facts include the depression being concealed, the addition
being significant, and this defect being discovered more than 10
years later.
2. Legal issue:
The implied warranty of habitability.
For the implied warranty of habitability to be valid, the defect
of the house must be latent, or not apparent upon a reasonable
inspection of the house at the time of sale.
I would say Barba & Barba Construction, Inc. were the

prevailing party because the case was dismissed.
The ten-year statute of repose was the sole support for the
dismissal of the case at the Supreme Court level.
Barba & Barba did not argue their case because the case was
dismissed, but I think the motivations behind their not building
the addition to code (which resulted in the case to begin with),
had to do with the extra time and money it would take to get the
proper approvals.
VonHoldt argued that the defendant breached an implied
warranty of habitability.
The defect would not have been apparent upon a reasonable
inspection before purchasing the house.
VonHoldt felt he was wronged because the house that he bought
has a significant addition that is not built to code that has
resulted in part of the house not being properly supported,
which will have to be fixed.
The court dismissed VonHoldt’s complaint.

The implied warranty of habitability is valid in this case, but
the action is time-barred by the ten-year statute of repose.
decision?
It seems like the courts wanted to rule in favor of Vonholdt
because this was within the implied warranty of habitability, but
because of the action being barred they could not.
C. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize,
and Compare
6. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court adopted
a different legal rule?”
Tassan v. United Development Company: This case involves 7
plaintiffs who brought suit against United Development Co., the
builder and seller of several condominium buildings in which
these seven plaintiffs were original owners of units in one of
the buildings. In one count of the case, they claimed that
United breached the implied warranty of habitability due to the
long list of defects that would soon result in the Condo
Association spending money to fix the problems, which would
result in costs assessed to condo association members. The
initial trial court dismissed the count, but the appellate court
reversed and remanded in favor of the plaintiffs.

In both cases, the issue of implied warranty of habitability is
present. These cases both demonstrate a construction
company’s need to be cautious and work diligently to perform
their work properly and correctly. Because of the nature of
construction and the reliance of individuals on these
professionals doing their job with due care, it seems reasonable
that courts would be stringent in applying the implied warranty
of habitability when dealing with cases such as these.
why not?
Legally, I agree that if the action is time-barred, the courts must
dismiss the complaint, but I feel like VonHoldt deserves some
kind of restitution or damages of some kind because he should
not be responsible for spending the time and money to fix
someone else’s mistake.
I think if the original owners had noticed the depression in the
floor plane or if the house had sold a few years earlier, then
Barba & Barba would be in big trouble because it was their duty
as professionals to build the addition properly.

1. How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future
career?
I think for an accountant, this falls in the category of due
professional care. The lesson I gain from this case is to make
certain my actions are appropriate and proper for the job I am
performing to avoid being potentially liable for a material
mistake comparable to that of Barba & Barba Corporation.
career field.
Be sure to perform duties in an acceptable and appropriate way
to avoid breaching an implied warranty.
5- Keeney V. Keeney
A. Legal Cognizance
1. Facts:
a. Briefly describe the facts. – Barbara Keeney and Milton
Keeney were married for a period of time and had a joint bank
account under Milton’s business account name K Bar Trailer
Manufacturer. During the time they were married, Milton
purchases some land using their join bank account but put the
land in his parents name to defraud a creditor. Barbara didn’t
even realize the land was in the parents name until it come up
during their divorce. She then took Milton to court to pursue her
half of the land. The court imposed a constructive trust and
ordered that the property and inventory be sold and divided
between the Keeney’s. The ruling was appealed but later
affirmed.
b. Which facts were key to the outcome? – The key fact that
the land was put into the parents name to defraud a creditor is
what caused for the constructive trust, meaning the court is
rectifying a misconduct or unjust enrichment. It didn’t help that
Milton and his patents kept it secret that they had put the land
in the parents name.
2. Legal issue:
a. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is
this case in the chapter)? This case is in the chapter because

the chapter is about trusts and wills and more specifically it
talks about constructive trusts as well which is what the judge
granted in the case Keeney V. Keeney.
b. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that
this case illustrates? For instance, if the case is about undue
said had to be proven by the plaintiff. Barbara had to prove that
the money paying for the land came out of her joint bank
account with her husband and that the ownership of the land
was concealed from her. She also expressed that the land was
put into the parents name to defraud a creditor.
a. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing
party? The prevailing party, Barbara, made the argument that
she deserves her portion of the land because the purchase was
made with their shared money.
principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party? The
fact that the land was put into the parents name to defraud a
creditor was in bad faith and also that the ownership of the land
was kept secret from Barbara.
party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the
dispute? Barbara’s only motivation was to retain the land that
was hers. She didn’t go after all of the property, only the
portion to be split in a divorce.
a. What legal arguments were made by the losing

party? The losing party, Milton and his parents, argued that the
land was in the name of the parents and therefore should not be
given to Barbara.
principles would support a ruling for the losing party? I believe
that the losing party would have been supported if the land
wasn’t put into the parents name to defraud a creditor, and if it
wasn’t concealed from Barbara that the land was not in Barbara
and Milton’s name.
The motivation for Milton and his parents was to keep the entire
property and not have to split it up because of a divorce since it
was in the parents name.
a. How did the court rule on each argument? The court ruled
in the favor of Barbara and imposed a constructive trust on the
property.
principles did the court use to support its ruling? The court
based its decision on the fact that the owners of the land was
concealed from Barbara and that the land was put into someone
elses name to defraud a creditor.
decision? I believe the judges motivation was to follow the law
and since the land was put into the parents name to defraud a
creditor, he had no other choice to impose a constructive trust.
a. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article or

I found a case very similar to this. A man named Donald had a
father who owned a family farm. Donald had four other siblings
that tended to and maintained this farm as well. The father was
diagnosed with cancer and couldn’t be put on welfare because
of all the land he owned. He then transferred the title of the
land to Donald as a trustee of the land. When the father passed
away Donald tried to keep the land for himself and was taken to
court by his siblings. The court imposed constructive trust,
saying that Donald had been unjustly enriched.
-Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and
The outcomes are quite similar in this case because both
prevailers in these cases were given constructive trusts in the
fact the land was transferred either in a wrongful situation or
unjustly enriched someone. I believe that every court case
depends on the details for the most part, but there seems to be a
bit of a trend when it comes to ownership of property. If it is
done the wrong way, the court will impose constructive trusts
on it.
why not? I agree with the ruling in this case. Barbara was never
informed that the land was in Milton’s parents name, therefore

she believed she owned the land throughout the marriage all the
way up to the divorce. The fact that Milton did this in bad faith
also supports my opinion.
I believe that if Milton hadn’t kept it a secret that his parents
actually owned the land, and if he didn’t do it to defraud a
creditor with prior judgement against him, the court may have
granted all of the land to Milton and his parents. Milton also
could have had Barbara sign a contract at the time of purchase
stating that in the case of a divorce, the land still belongs to
Milton and his parents.
c. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or
to the experience someone else has shared with you.NA
future career? I have learned by reading this case not to ever
transfer title to cause unjust enrichment or in bad faith. Im not
quite sure how this would affect accounting, but I know now to
have contracts written in order to protect my belongings.
career field. To avoid this type of situation, do not transfer title
or put title into someone elses name to defraud anyone or in bad
faith in general.

6- CASE NAME: Home Rentals Corp. V. Curtis
1. Legal Cognizance
2. Facts:
Curtis and his other roommates leased a home from Home
rentals that they were to move into on August 17. They paid a
$500 deposit plus $1,480 for the last 2 months rent. When the
agreement was made the home was fine, however, when they
arrived in August the home was filthy and uninhabitable. After
making Home rentals aware they were told to clean it up and
they would be reimbursed. They attempted to clean but the
home was still uninhabitable. On August 21 the tenants found
housing elsewhere and the city warned Home Rentals that they
had to clean the home up within 72 hours. Home Rentals did as
they were told but did not rent the home to anyone else, instead
they brought suit against Curtis for breach of lease agreement.
Curtis countersued for the initial $1,980 paid for the deposit
and rent.
The home was inhabitable due to the filth, plumbing issues, and
roaches. The tenants left and found somewhere that was
habitable.
2. Legal issue:

This case covers Constructive eviction.
Constructive eviction is a failure by the landlord in any of
her/his obligations under the lease that causes a substantial and
lasting injury to the tenant’s beneficial enjoyment of the
premises.
1. Expand Perspective, Gain Interpersonal Understanding, and
The prevailing party was essentially forced to leave because the
home was not habitable.
The facts were that, due to the filth the home was rendered
uninhabitable and because of this the tenants could not stay
there. The landlord was obligated to ensure the home was
habitable.
The motivations leading up to the actions of the prevailing party
were to simply get out of the lease in order to find somewhere
else to live.

They argued that the tenants breached the lease agreement by
leaving and finding housing elsewhere.
The tenants did in fact find housing elsewhere.
I assume that since they got the home to the point of
habitability again they thought that they could enforce the lease
agreement with the tenants.
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, Curtis.
The home was not habitable because the landlord failed to
ensure the home was habitable, therefore causing a constructive
eviction.
decision?
The landlord failed to ensure the home was habitable and the
tenants had no other choice but to leave.
1. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize,
and Compare
adopted a different legal rule?” Had the court required the
tenants give a two week period for the home to be cleaned up by
the landlord before they could break the lease the outcome
would have been different.
After finding several cases that fell under constructive eviction,

I found this one in specific to be very interesting. Kite V. Gus
Kaplan describes a fine jewelry department located in a high
traffic area that was outfitted especially for the department with
special display cases was moved to a less desirable place by the
landlord for reasons that were not explained in the article. The
courts ruled in favor of the jewelry department because, even
though the landlord moved them somewhere else because of the
problem, they were considered unlawfully evicted.
The two cases are similar in that they both involve constructive
conviction. However, they are dissimilar as well. In the article
I found online the landlord made an attempt to rectify the
situation by at least moving them to a different location rather
than leaving them on their own. I found that there are many
different reasons that a landlord can be sued for constructive
eviction. Some examples given were failure to furnish heat,
sanitary restrooms, and elevators. I also found it interesting
that even though a landlord can move tenants to another
location they may not be excused from a constructive eviction
suit.
1. Creative, Application and Critical Thinking Questions

why not?
I agree with the court’s decision in this case. I feel like the
tenants had a reasonable expectation of cleanliness and
habitability of the home they were leasing. If the home is not
habitable then the landlord should not be able to sue the tenants
for not inhabiting it.
would make a difference. If the house were fine but the tenants
changed their mind about the lease because they found
somewhere better with lower rent then the court would have
ruled differently.
2. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or to
the experience someone else has shared with you.
My cousin rented an apartment/cabin place for us to stay in at a
amusement park in Indiana when I visited once. We arrived at
the apartment to find that it was relatively clean but later
discovered several spiders in the bedding and bugs in the
bedrooms. We stayed for a few hours because we arrived there
extremely early in the morning after driving all night to get
there. Once the office was opened we requested our money
back and told them we would only be staying for the day to
enjoy the amusement park and that we’d be leaving in the
evening. We explained the situation and they apologized and
returned my cousin’s money.
1. How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future
career?
I will definitely make sure that if I am ever a landlord the rental
property is clean, habitable, or otherwise meets the standards of
the renter or lessee.
career field.

I would recommend that Home Rentals Corp. always maintain
their property, maybe by investing in a cleaning and
extermination company and doing frequent checks on the homes
that are vacant to ensure they are well maintained.

1-CASE NAME Ofallon v. OfallonA. Legal Cognizance1. Facts.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1-CASE NAME Ofallon v. OfallonA. Legal Cognizance1. Facts.docx

Similar to 1-CASE NAME Ofallon v. OfallonA. Legal Cognizance1. Facts.docx (16)

More from SONU61709

More from SONU61709 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1-CASE NAME Ofallon v. OfallonA. Legal Cognizance1. Facts.docx