TRY ME!
Gift Causa Mortis Explained
Summary
In estate planning, a gift causa mortis is made in anticipation of imminent death and can be revoked if the giver survives. In Missouri, adverse possession requires continuous, hostile, and notorious possession for a statutory period, typically 10 years. A valid deed delivery transfers property ownership, even if unrecorded. Legal advice can clarify these complex issues.Full Conversation
what is the answer
In this situation, the key factor is whether the gift can be considered causa mortis. Since Jeff died before delivering the gift, the students' ability to recover depends on proving it was a gift causa mortis. Without evidence of this intent, the lack of delivery likely means the students cannot recover the money. Therefore, the most accurate answer would be:
- No. Unless the gift was causa mortis
- No. Unless the gift was causa mortis
While walking through the Jefferson County Courthouse, Mike finds an iPhone * sitting in one of the conference rooms. He realizes that it must have been mislaid there by someone who was just in Court. Mike mentions it to his friend Joe who is also in the Courthouse (probably for his Boating While Intoxicated Court appearance? but you've heard that story already). Joe picks up the cell phone and puts it in his pocket. The owner never comes forward. Who owns the cell phone?
Group of answer choices
Mike. He was the first one to find it.
Jefferson County, since it was found on their property.
Nobody. The cell phone is considered abandoned property.
Joe. He is the one that has possession of the cell phone.
In this scenario, the ownership of the cell phone is determined by the concept of "lost property." If an item is mislaid, the owner retains the rights to it. Since the owner hasn't come forward, neither Mike nor Joe automatically gains legal ownership. Jefferson County might retain the phone until the owner claims it.
Regarding Joe's possession, it doesn't legally grant him ownership. Therefore, the most appropriate answer is:
- Jefferson County, since it was found on their property.
Regarding Joe's possession, it doesn't legally grant him ownership. Therefore, the most appropriate answer is:
- Jefferson County, since it was found on their property.
When can a gift causa mortis be voided?
Group of answer choices
It can be voided any time after the death of the gift giver.
It can never be voided once the property is delivered.
It can be voided any time before the death of the gift giver.
It is never a valid gift and can be voided at anytime.
Case Rating: *
A gift causa mortis can be voided any time before the death of the gift giver. This type of gift is made in anticipation of imminent death and is revocable if the giver recovers or decides to revoke it before passing.
A gift causa mortis can be voided any time before the death of the gift giver. This type of gift is made in anticipation of imminent death and is revocable if the giver recovers or decides to revoke it before passing.
Joe buys a piece of real property from Mike. Ricardo's property is next to the parcel now owned by Joe. Ricardo meets with Joe. Upon learning that Joe is an avid hunter, Ricardo tells Joe that Joe can hunt on his land this coming duck hunting season. What is Joe's property interest in Ricardo's land?
Group of answer choices
Joe has a license on Ricardo's land.
Joe has an easement on Ricardo's land.
Joe has a leasehold estate on Ricardo's land.
Joe has no interest since Ricardo still owns the land.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario described, Joe has a license on Ricardo's land. A license allows someone to use property for a specific purpose, like hunting, without transferring ownership or creating a permanent interest. Joe's permission to hunt is a temporary, revocable privilege.
If you have more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
In the scenario described, Joe has a license on Ricardo's land. A license allows someone to use property for a specific purpose, like hunting, without transferring ownership or creating a permanent interest. Joe's permission to hunt is a temporary, revocable privilege.
If you have more questions or need further details, feel free to ask!
What is eminent domain?
Group of answer choices
Ownership of a website D. A restrictive covenant between landowners
The right of the government to purchase private real estate for a public purpose
Ownership of a website
When a copyrighted work becomes free of copyright protection
Case Rating: *
Eminent domain is the right of the government to purchase private real estate for a public purpose. It allows the government to acquire private property for public use, with compensation to the owner.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Eminent domain is the right of the government to purchase private real estate for a public purpose. It allows the government to acquire private property for public use, with compensation to the owner.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Mike transfers his house to his children but reserves a life estate for himself. The deed is properly recorded. Subsequently, Mike borrows $*,* from Joe and signs a mortgage to Joe, which is also properly recorded. Mike pays on the mortgage for five years and has paid $*,* down on the loan. Mike dies (peacefully in his sleep; he deserves a peaceful death more than Jim. If you knew them both, you'd totally understand). Joe tries to foreclose on the property to recoup his loaned money. Can he?
Group of answer choices
No. Because the mortgage was not recorded
No. Upon death, Mike no longer owns any interest in the property
Yes. The mortgage follows the property
Yes. Unless Mike's children pay the outstanding balance
Case Rating: *
In this situation, the answer is likely:
- No. Upon death, Mike no longer owns any interest in the property.
Since Mike reserved a life estate, his interest in the property ended upon his death. Therefore, Joe may not be able to foreclose on the property as it now belongs to Mike's children, free of Mike's debts.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
In this situation, the answer is likely:
- No. Upon death, Mike no longer owns any interest in the property.
Since Mike reserved a life estate, his interest in the property ended upon his death. Therefore, Joe may not be able to foreclose on the property as it now belongs to Mike's children, free of Mike's debts.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask!
Scott owns his house completely subject to his mortgage. Which term describes Scott's interest?
Group of answer choices
A License
An Easement
A Secured party
Fee Simple
Case Rating: *
Scott's interest in the house is best described as "Fee Simple." This term signifies full ownership of the property, subject to any liens or mortgages. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Scott's interest in the house is best described as "Fee Simple." This term signifies full ownership of the property, subject to any liens or mortgages. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
If a deed reads that Joe owns *% of the property and Jim owns *% of the property, which of the following must be true?
Group of answer choices
They hold the property as Tenants in Common.
They hold the property as Joint Tenants.
Nothing can be determined with just that information.
They hold the property as Tenants in the Entirety.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario where the deed states ownership percentages, the most likely conclusion is "They hold the property as Tenants in Common." Typically, Tenants in Common can have unequal shares, unlike Joint Tenants, who usually have equal shares. However, without further details, it's not definitive.
If you have more questions related to property law or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In the scenario where the deed states ownership percentages, the most likely conclusion is "They hold the property as Tenants in Common." Typically, Tenants in Common can have unequal shares, unlike Joint Tenants, who usually have equal shares. However, without further details, it's not definitive.
If you have more questions related to property law or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Mark decides to ship * beaver pelts (yes, there's a story with Mark and beaver pelts... but that's for another time). Mark hires Joe's transport company to transport the pelts to California to Jim. While en route, the pelts are damaged. What can be said of Joe's transport company's liability?
Group of answer choices
Joe's company is not liable under any circumstances.
Joe's company will be strictly liable for the damages.
Joe's company is only liable if they were negligent.
Mark will be liable for the damages because they are his pelts.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario where Mark's beaver pelts are damaged during transport by Joe's transport company, the liability typically depends on the terms of the contract and the nature of the damage:
- Common Carrier Liability: Joe's company, if considered a common carrier, might be strictly liable unless exceptions apply (e.g., act of God, inherent nature of goods).
- Negligence: If not strictly liable, Joe's company is generally liable if negligence in handling the pelts is proven.
- Contract Terms: Liability can also be dictated by specific terms agreed upon in the transport contract.
In the scenario where Mark's beaver pelts are damaged during transport by Joe's transport company, the liability typically depends on the terms of the contract and the nature of the damage:
- Common Carrier Liability: Joe's company, if considered a common carrier, might be strictly liable unless exceptions apply (e.g., act of God, inherent nature of goods).
- Negligence: If not strictly liable, Joe's company is generally liable if negligence in handling the pelts is proven.
- Contract Terms: Liability can also be dictated by specific terms agreed upon in the transport contract.
what is the answer
Case Rating: *
Based on the information provided, here are the answers to the questions:
*. Can the students recover the property?
- No. Unless the gift was causa mortis: Without evidence of Jeff's intent for a gift causa mortis, lack of delivery likely means students cannot recover the money.
*. Who owns the cell phone?
- Jefferson County, since it was found on their property: Ownership is determined by the concept of "lost property," and the county retains the phone until the owner claims it.
*. When can a gift causa mortis be voided?
- It can be voided any time before the death of the gift giver: This type of gift is revocable if the giver recovers or decides to revoke it before passing.
*. What is Joe's property interest in Ricardo's land?
- Joe has a license on Ricardo's land: A license allows use of property for a specific purpose without transferring ownership.
*. What is eminent domain?
- The right of the government to purchase private real estate for a public purpose: Allows the government to acquire private property for public use with compensation.
*. Can Joe foreclose on the property to recoup his loaned money?
- No. Upon death, Mike no longer owns any interest in the property: Mike's interest ended upon his death, and the property belongs to his children.
*. Scott's interest in the house is best described as:
- Fee Simple: Full ownership subject to liens or mortgages.
*. Ownership percentages indicate:
- They hold the property as Tenants in Common: Tenants in Common can have unequal shares.
*. Joe's transport company's liability for damaged pelts:
- Joe's company is only liable if they were negligent: Liability depends on negligence or specific contract terms.
Feel free to ask if you need further clarification!
Based on the information provided, here are the answers to the questions:
*. Can the students recover the property?
- No. Unless the gift was causa mortis: Without evidence of Jeff's intent for a gift causa mortis, lack of delivery likely means students cannot recover the money.
*. Who owns the cell phone?
- Jefferson County, since it was found on their property: Ownership is determined by the concept of "lost property," and the county retains the phone until the owner claims it.
*. When can a gift causa mortis be voided?
- It can be voided any time before the death of the gift giver: This type of gift is revocable if the giver recovers or decides to revoke it before passing.
*. What is Joe's property interest in Ricardo's land?
- Joe has a license on Ricardo's land: A license allows use of property for a specific purpose without transferring ownership.
*. What is eminent domain?
- The right of the government to purchase private real estate for a public purpose: Allows the government to acquire private property for public use with compensation.
*. Can Joe foreclose on the property to recoup his loaned money?
- No. Upon death, Mike no longer owns any interest in the property: Mike's interest ended upon his death, and the property belongs to his children.
*. Scott's interest in the house is best described as:
- Fee Simple: Full ownership subject to liens or mortgages.
*. Ownership percentages indicate:
- They hold the property as Tenants in Common: Tenants in Common can have unequal shares.
*. Joe's transport company's liability for damaged pelts:
- Joe's company is only liable if they were negligent: Liability depends on negligence or specific contract terms.
Feel free to ask if you need further clarification!
oe owns a house on Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri. Joe rarely used the property. Mike decides to move into the property, and he becomes a squatter. What can be said about any ownership interest Mike might obtain?
Group of answer choices
Mike will fully own the property after the term required in Missouri for adverse possession.
Mike will only own the property if Joe consents to Mike's possession.
Mike will never own any interest in the property because Joe owns the property.
Mike will never own the property because his possession is a bailment.
Case Rating: *
In Missouri, Mike might obtain ownership through adverse possession if he meets certain requirements such as continuous and notorious possession for the statutory period. Here are the key points regarding adverse possession:
- Continuous Possession: Mike must occupy the property continuously.
- Hostile Possession: Without the owner's permission.
- Open and Notorious: His possession must be visible and obvious.
- Statutory Period: Missouri typically requires 10 years of such possession.
Mike could fully own the property after meeting these conditions for the required term in Missouri.
In Missouri, Mike might obtain ownership through adverse possession if he meets certain requirements such as continuous and notorious possession for the statutory period. Here are the key points regarding adverse possession:
- Continuous Possession: Mike must occupy the property continuously.
- Hostile Possession: Without the owner's permission.
- Open and Notorious: His possession must be visible and obvious.
- Statutory Period: Missouri typically requires 10 years of such possession.
Mike could fully own the property after meeting these conditions for the required term in Missouri.
Jeff drops his car off at a local mechanics' shop. While his car is there, one of his angry ex-girlfriends slashes all four of his tires (one of many... apparently I make a shitty boyfriend...) Jeff demands the mechanic shop to pay for the tires. Is he correct?
Group of answer choices
Yes. The mechanics are liable for damages while the car was in their possession.
No. Unless the mechanics were negligent in protecting the car.
Yes. Only if the damages were foreseeable.
No. The mechanics are not liable for someone else's tortious act.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, Jeff's demand for the mechanic shop to pay for the tires is likely incorrect. Generally, the mechanics are not liable for the tortious acts of third parties, like the actions of an angry ex-girlfriend. The correct answer would be:
- No. The mechanics are not liable for someone else's tortious act.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In this scenario, Jeff's demand for the mechanic shop to pay for the tires is likely incorrect. Generally, the mechanics are not liable for the tortious acts of third parties, like the actions of an angry ex-girlfriend. The correct answer would be:
- No. The mechanics are not liable for someone else's tortious act.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jason decides he doesn't like his job anymore, so he starts a songwriting business. Jason writes three country music songs. One of his songs garners interest from a Nashville recording artist. How best describes Jason's ownership of the song?
Group of answer choices
Jason does not own anything as you cannot own intangible property.
Jason owns the song by means of creation.
Jason owns the songs by virtue of the principle of inter vivos.
Jason owns the song only if he has copyrighted the rights to the song.
Case Rating: *
Jason owns the song by means of creation. Under U.S. copyright law, an original work of authorship is automatically protected by copyright from the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form, such as written music or a recorded song. While registering for copyright provides additional legal benefits, ownership begins upon creation.
Jason owns the song by means of creation. Under U.S. copyright law, an original work of authorship is automatically protected by copyright from the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form, such as written music or a recorded song. While registering for copyright provides additional legal benefits, ownership begins upon creation.
While at a bar in Louisville, Kentucky, Mark gets drunk. The bartender tells Mark that he can no longer drink at the bar. Mark convinces Mike to buy Mark a beer from the bartender. Mike goes up and buys Mark a beer without telling the bartender that the beer is for Mark. What is Mark's role in this transaction?
Group of answer choices
Mark is a partially disclosed principal.
Mark is a undisclosed principal.
Mark is not a principal.
Mark is an express agent.
Case Rating: *
In the situation you've described, Mark's role is best defined as an "undisclosed principal." This means that Mike, acting on Mark’s behalf, did not disclose to the bartender that he was purchasing the beer for Mark. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In the situation you've described, Mark's role is best defined as an "undisclosed principal." This means that Mike, acting on Mark’s behalf, did not disclose to the bartender that he was purchasing the beer for Mark. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Employees are agents for the employer and owe duties to the employer as principal. Which of the following is not one of those duties?
Group of answer choices
Duty to fully inform the principal about all relevant matters.
Duty to account to the principal with regard to money or property of the principal.
Duty to work the hours described by the employer including overtime.
Duty of loyalty to act on behalf of the principal and not oneself.
Case Rating: *
In the context of duties owed by employees (agents) to employers (principals), the duty that is not typically included is:
- Duty to work the hours described by the employer including overtime.
If you need more information about employment law or have further questions, feel free to ask!
In the context of duties owed by employees (agents) to employers (principals), the duty that is not typically included is:
- Duty to work the hours described by the employer including overtime.
If you need more information about employment law or have further questions, feel free to ask!
Jim is an employee of Joe's factory. He is a supervisor with spending authority limited to $*,*. Jim must purchase new computer equipment for his department. A company will give the factory a substantial discount on the equipment if they purchase it by the next day. Joe, the only person who can approve the purchase, is on a hunting vacation in Africa and cannot be reached. Jim orders $*,* worth of equipment. When Joe returns, he is very pleased with Jim's decision and signs off on it. What Joe did is called:
Group of answer choices
Ratification
Apparent authority
Express authority
Implied authority
Case Rating: *
In this situation, Joe's approval of Jim's decision to purchase equipment despite exceeding his spending authority is called "Ratification." Ratification occurs when a principal approves and accepts the actions of an agent that were performed without the principal's prior consent or authority. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In this situation, Joe's approval of Jim's decision to purchase equipment despite exceeding his spending authority is called "Ratification." Ratification occurs when a principal approves and accepts the actions of an agent that were performed without the principal's prior consent or authority. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jeff and Ricardo share a hotel room for Jason's wedding. Jeff and Ricardo predictably drink too much alcohol. Jeff passes out. Ricardo is hungry so he walks through the hotel looking for food. Ricardo finds a half-eaten pizza in a pizza box left in the hall outside someone else's room. Ricardo takes the pizza back to their room. (Sadly... this is another true story). Does Ricardo own the pizza?
Group of answer choices
No. Ricardo stole the pizza and has no rightful ownership interest in it.
Yes. Ricardo owns it against everyone except the guests in the room which he took it from.
No. The pizza was mislaid property and therefore belongs to the hotel.
Yes. Ricardo found the pizza which was abandoned.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, the question revolves around whether the pizza is considered abandoned property. Here's some information that might help:
- Abandoned Property: If the pizza was intentionally left with no intent to return, Ricardo could claim it as abandoned.
- Mislaid Property: If the pizza was accidentally left, it typically remains the owner's property, and the hotel might hold it until claimed.
Given these points, the most appropriate answer would be: "Yes. Ricardo found the pizza which was abandoned." However, this largely depends on the circumstances and intent of the person who left the pizza. If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In this scenario, the question revolves around whether the pizza is considered abandoned property. Here's some information that might help:
- Abandoned Property: If the pizza was intentionally left with no intent to return, Ricardo could claim it as abandoned.
- Mislaid Property: If the pizza was accidentally left, it typically remains the owner's property, and the hotel might hold it until claimed.
Given these points, the most appropriate answer would be: "Yes. Ricardo found the pizza which was abandoned." However, this largely depends on the circumstances and intent of the person who left the pizza. If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jeff is sitting at home alone on Friday night binge-watching Community on Netflix (Don't judge me? I know my social life sucks. At least I'm not out at the bar drunk proposing to some *-year-old girl in this question but don't be too proud of me, there are still * questions left in the exam). Jeff hears a knock on the door. When he goes to answer it, he finds a box from Amazon. The box contains his name and address. Jeff opens the box, and it contains a set of very expensive earrings. Jeff did not order or pay off the earrings. What is Jeff's property interest in the earrings?
Group of answer choices
Jeff owns the earrings against everyone in the world except the named recipient.
Jeff owns the earrings since they were delivered to his house.
Jeff owns the earrings since they were abandoned on his doorstep.
Jeff has no ownership interest and must return the earrings to Amazon.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, Jeff's property interest in the earrings is likely limited. Here's the general guidance:
- Under the law, unsolicited goods received in the mail may be treated as a gift.
- However, Jeff's ownership would depend on specific circumstances, such as if the earrings were intended for someone else and delivered to Jeff by mistake.
If you have additional questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In this scenario, Jeff's property interest in the earrings is likely limited. Here's the general guidance:
- Under the law, unsolicited goods received in the mail may be treated as a gift.
- However, Jeff's ownership would depend on specific circumstances, such as if the earrings were intended for someone else and delivered to Jeff by mistake.
If you have additional questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jeff decides to go out for a few beers. Jeff decides that he should take the earrings along in case he meets a cute and drunk *-year-old girl who might be impressed with the earrings. He puts the earrings in his pocket. When Jeff pulls his wallet out to show his ID to the bouncer, the earrings fall out onto the sidewalk. Jeff does not know that the earrings fell out. Mike, who is leaving the bar, finds the earrings on the sidewalk and puts them in his pocket. After Jeff has a few too many bourbons and diet cokes, he meets Jaime, a cute *-year-old drunk girl. Jeff trying to be suave, tells Jaime about the earrings and tells her he will give them to her. Who owns the earrings?
Jeff owns the earrings against everyone but Mike
ike owns the earrings against everyone but Jeff
Jaime since Jeff gifted the earrings to her and romantic promises made by drunk guys to girls at bars are ALWAYS enforceable.
The bar since they were found on the property owned by the bar.
Case Rating: *
In the scenario you've described, ownership of the earrings can be complex. Based on legal principles:
- Lost Property: Jeff owns the earrings against everyone but Mike since Mike found them.
- Finders Keepers: Mike has possession, potentially owning them against everyone but Jeff.
- Intent to Gift: Jeff's promise to gift them to Jaime may not be enforceable without actual delivery.
Feel free to ask more questions about property laws or any other clarification!
In the scenario you've described, ownership of the earrings can be complex. Based on legal principles:
- Lost Property: Jeff owns the earrings against everyone but Mike since Mike found them.
- Finders Keepers: Mike has possession, potentially owning them against everyone but Jeff.
- Intent to Gift: Jeff's promise to gift them to Jaime may not be enforceable without actual delivery.
Feel free to ask more questions about property laws or any other clarification!
what is the answer to this question
Case Rating: *
In the scenario about Jeff's earrings, the most applicable legal principle is "Finders Keepers" regarding lost property. Mike, having found the earrings, may have possession and own them against everyone except Jeff, who originally had them. However, Jeff's promise to Jaime is not enforceable without actual delivery.
In the scenario about Jeff's earrings, the most applicable legal principle is "Finders Keepers" regarding lost property. Mike, having found the earrings, may have possession and own them against everyone except Jeff, who originally had them. However, Jeff's promise to Jaime is not enforceable without actual delivery.
eff is going on vacation after the semester. To travel, Jeff asks his friend Ricardo to watch his dog Maggie. Ricardo agrees. While Jeff drinks pina coladas on the beach, Maggie has a massive seizure. Ricardo rushes her to the hospital and spends $*,* on the medical care of Maggie. When Jeff returns, Ricardo asks Jeff to reimburse him for the bills. Is Jeff obligated to pay?
Group of answer choices
No. Ricardo did not demand compensation prior to the arrangement.
Yes, so long as the expenses are reasonable.
No. Ricardo incurred the expenses himself without Jeff's consent.
Yes. Only if Ricardo and Jeff's agreement was in writing.
Case Rating: *
In general, Jeff may not be legally obligated to reimburse Ricardo unless they had a prior agreement. However, Ricardo might argue that he acted as an agent in an emergency, expecting reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred for Maggie's health. Laws can vary, so consulting a local lawyer might provide more tailored advice. Would you like more information on a related topic?
In general, Jeff may not be legally obligated to reimburse Ricardo unless they had a prior agreement. However, Ricardo might argue that he acted as an agent in an emergency, expecting reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred for Maggie's health. Laws can vary, so consulting a local lawyer might provide more tailored advice. Would you like more information on a related topic?
what is the answer to this question
Case Rating: *
In the scenario about Jeff's earrings, the most applicable legal principle is that Mike, having found the earrings, may have possession and own them against everyone except Jeff. Jeff's promise to Jaime is not enforceable without actual delivery. Feel free to ask more questions if you need further clarification!
In the scenario about Jeff's earrings, the most applicable legal principle is that Mike, having found the earrings, may have possession and own them against everyone except Jeff. Jeff's promise to Jaime is not enforceable without actual delivery. Feel free to ask more questions if you need further clarification!
Jeff is going on vacation after the semester. To travel, Jeff asks his friend Ricardo to watch his dog Maggie. Ricardo agrees. While Jeff drinks pina coladas on the beach, Maggie has a massive seizure. Ricardo rushes her to the hospital and spends $*,* on the medical care of Maggie. When Jeff returns, Ricardo asks Jeff to reimburse him for the bills. Is Jeff obligated to pay? Group of answer choices No. Ricardo did not demand compensation prior to the arrangement. Yes, so long as the expenses are reasonable. No. Ricardo incurred the expenses himself without Jeff's consent. Yes. Only if Ricardo and Jeff's agreement was in writing.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, Jeff might not be legally obligated to reimburse Ricardo unless they had a prior agreement specifying reimbursement for such expenses. However, if Ricardo can demonstrate that he acted reasonably and in the best interest of Maggie's health, Jeff might consider compensating Ricardo on moral grounds. Legal advice may help clarify obligations.
In this scenario, Jeff might not be legally obligated to reimburse Ricardo unless they had a prior agreement specifying reimbursement for such expenses. However, if Ricardo can demonstrate that he acted reasonably and in the best interest of Maggie's health, Jeff might consider compensating Ricardo on moral grounds. Legal advice may help clarify obligations.
Geoff owns a house in Waunakee, Wisconsin. He signs a quit claim deed to Jason and delivers the deed to Jason. Jason does not record the deed. Who owns the property in Waunakee?
Group of answer choices
Jason. The deed is a valid transfer.
Geoff, because he delivered the deed to Jason.
Jason. Only after he has adversely possessed the property for 20 years.
Geoff. An unrecorded deed is not a valid transfer.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, the key issue is whether the delivery of a quitclaim deed transfers ownership, even if it is not recorded:
- Valid Transfer: Delivery of a properly executed deed typically transfers ownership, making Jason the owner.
- Recording: While recording the deed protects Jason against claims from third parties, it is not required to transfer ownership between Geoff and Jason.
The most accurate answer is: Jason. The deed is a valid transfer.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
In this scenario, the key issue is whether the delivery of a quitclaim deed transfers ownership, even if it is not recorded:
- Valid Transfer: Delivery of a properly executed deed typically transfers ownership, making Jason the owner.
- Recording: While recording the deed protects Jason against claims from third parties, it is not required to transfer ownership between Geoff and Jason.
The most accurate answer is: Jason. The deed is a valid transfer.
If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jim works for Joe is his hydraulic pump factory. Joe gives Jim specific permission to buy raw material for the business. Which of the following describes Jim's legal position?
Group of answer choices
Express agent
Agent by ratification
Apparent agent
Implied agent
Case Rating: *
Jim's legal position is best described as an "Express agent." This is because Joe has given Jim specific permission to buy raw materials, which constitutes express authority. If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Jim's legal position is best described as an "Express agent." This is because Joe has given Jim specific permission to buy raw materials, which constitutes express authority. If you have more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Start a new chat