PROPERTY LAW

Name:

Institution:

Eminent domain on Martin’s Coastal property

Tiaisha Randolph argues that, Martin has to oblige with the decision of the state government in developing a family resort in his private property. The Tar Heel Family Resort is a project by the state government to try and improve the image of the city. She advises Martin to proceed as advised by his lawyer and take the compensation of the house. It is due to the fact that he has no power to challenge eminent domain (Schmidgen, 2002). Martin has to take compensation because legally the state government has the right to proceed with the development of the resort.

My opinion is that Martin should not be quick to jump into taking compensation. Instead, he should seek legal redress in order for the government to prove that the four elements set forth in the Fifth Amendment are present: (1) private property (2) must be taken (3) for public use (4) and with just compensation. This is ascribed to the fact that particular use to be considered public is ordinarily a question to be determined by the courts. In the recent past, there has been growing concern over the misuse of eminent domain by corrupt government officials (Ashar & Baker, 2010).  After ensuring that all these are present, then he will be obliged to accept his compensation of the house and build or buy another house elsewhere.

Mountain property adverse possession

Carvin Brown argues that, from a legal perspective, Otis has the legal right to the property under adverse possession laws of North Carolina. He has met all elements of the law to include 20 years of residence. The period of time set by North Carolina is 20 years and the adverse possessor is expected to have full claim of the land for the period.

My opinion is that Martin should take the matter to court and try battling the matter with Otis. Individuals have the right to keep intruders off their property. In the future Martin should keep off intruders by fencing the property and placing signs that warns trespassers. Legal action will be taken by the individuals who cannot keep away from the property (Barnett, 2011). It is a legal way to keep adverse possessors of the personal property and helps in avoiding adverse possession of an individual property.

References

Ashar, L., & Baker, S. (2010). The complete guide to planning your estate in Michigan: A step-by-step plan to protect your assets, limit your taxes, and ensure your wishes are fulfilled for Michigan residents. Ocala, FL: Atlantic Pub. Group.

Barnett, L. (2011). The place of law: The role and limits of law in society. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Schmidgen, W. (2002). Eighteenth-century fiction and the law of property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.