gbl hw8

.doc

School

Michigan State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

385

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

doc

Pages

4

Uploaded by SuperJellyfish4123 on coursehero.com

QUESTIONS FOR HOMEWORK 8 1. For each of the following please explain why it is or it is not a real property: (a) An air-conditioning unit installed on the top of the roof of a commercial building Air-conditioning would realistically be considered a fixture. Since it has become installed to the roof of the building, which is already a real property, it would become a part of the real property then. If it had just been the air-conditioning itself, that would’ve been more so considered personal property instead of real. (b) An apple tree planted in the back of your home’s yard When it comes to real property, it refers to land with permanent structures or other improvements which are attached to that land. Since in this case, the apple tree is planted into the yard, which would therefore be permanently attached to the land, it would end up being considered real property. (c) A refrigerator in your home’s kitchen Since real property would require something to be permanently attached, a refrigerator would most likely not be considered as real property. In this case, since it can be moved around easily and isn’t fixed to anything, it would more likely be considered as personal property. (d) Your home’s kitchen cabinets Even though the kitchen cabinets are inside the house just like a refrigerator would be, cabinets are fully attached on the inside of the walls of the kitchen. Therefore, since they are permanently attached and cannot be easily moved, they would be considered real property. (e) A house trailer When it comes to a house trailer, it would not be fully attached to the land, and it would be able to be moved if needed. Since this is the case, it would realistically be considered to be personal property rather than be considered as real property. (f) The sprinkler system installed in your back yard When it comes to sprinkler systems, it could actually either be considered personal property or real property depending on the type of sprinkler system. If the system is one that is installed into the ground and cannot be moved, then it would be considered real property. If they are movable sprinklers, then they would be considered personal property. 2. Please explain the key differences or characteristics between the following types of property ownership:
(a) Joint tenancy Joint tenancy involves 2 or more people who own shares of a property. When any people pass away or leave, then the others will take their part of the property. All of the people involved in the tenancy have equal ownership of the property. They all must be on the same title and equal right. (b) Tenancy in common This involves 2 or more people who own shares, but the dividend can be unequal. With this tenancy, there is not a right of survivorship involved. The owners can transfer or sell their individual parts of the share and it won’t matter the other owners’ opinions. Each individual owner has the right for their entire property. (c) Tenancy by the entirety This is more so geared towards those who are married. If one person was to pass away, the other person would gain the interest from the other. This type of tenancy can include protection from individual creditors. Lastly, both people have equal right to their property. 3. Bob owns a 2-acre parcel of land. He purchased 5 years ago to build his vacation cottage home when he retires next year. Earlier this year the City of Wander in an effort to control the rapid growth of the community and to maintain the country setting of the neighborhoods amended its existing zoning ordinance to limit the size of buildable lots to 4 acres. However, the ordinance did not modify the existing permission to place any size of RV or other mobile structure on city lands. Bob filed for an application for a building permit with the city when he was told his request was denied due to the zoning requirements. Bob contents that the zoning ordinance constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law? Is he correct? Why or why not? Please briefly explain your answers. There are multiple factors that could vary on if Bob is correct or not in the situation. For one, there could be deprivation of property. Bob could say that he no longer has the ability to use his land due to the change in zoning restrictions. There would also be the concern about if Bob was given notice for the zone change ahead of time which would have given him the ability to speak out about it. If he knew about it, due process requirements would be satisfied. Lastly, the zoning ordinance did not modify the permission to place RVs on the lands, so this could affect the argument that the change prohibits the use of his land. 4. Tyler, an avid hunter, discovered a place in the State of Moss to be any hunter’s paradise. Although he knew that he had no rights to the property, he decided 15 years ago to build a lodge to use during his hunting trips. Annually at least 5 times per year he visited the lodge for hunting, ranging from 10-day to 15-day trips each time. Two years ago he decided to further improve the property and he installed a wooden fence around the lodge covering approximately 2 acres of land and a small detached garage for his pickup truck. He
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help