Go to page 955-956 in the text. Answer Business Scenarios and Case Problems 49.1 and 49.10. For this course, 49.10 is not a group activity. You must answer parts a, b, and c on your own.
491. Property Ownership. Madison owned a tract of land, but he was not sure that he had full title to the property. When Rafael expressed an interest in buying the land, Madison sold it to Rafael and executed a quitclaim deed. Rafael properly recorded the deed immediately. Several months later, Madison learned that he had had full title to the tract of land. He then sold the land to Linda by warranty deed. Linda knew of the ear lier purchase by Rafael but took the deed anyway and later sued to have Rafael evicted from the land. Linda claimed that because she had a warranty deed, her title to the land was better than that conferred by Rafaels quitclaim deed. Will Linda succeed in claiming title to the land? Explain. (See Transfer ofOwnership.)
4910. Adverse Possession. The Wallen family owned a cabin on Lummi Island in the state of Washington. A driveway ran from the cabin across their property to South Nugent Road. Floyd Massey bought the adjacent lot and built a cabin on it in 1980. To gain access to his property, Massey used a bulldozer to extend the driveway, without the Wallens permission but also without their objection. Twentyfive years later, the Wallens sold their property to Wright Fish Company. Massey continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection. Later, Massey sold his property to Robert Drake. Drake and his employees continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection, although Drake knew it was located largely on Wrights property. Still later, Wright sold its lot to Robert Smersh. The next year, Smersh told Drake to stop using the driveway. Drake filed a suit against Smersh, claiming adverse possession. (See Transfer of Ownership.)
(a) The first group will decide whether Drakes use of the drive way meets all of the requirements for adverse possession.
(b) The second group will determine how the court should rule in this case and why. Does it matter that Drake knew the driveway was located largely on Wrights (and then Smershs) property? Should it matter? Why or why not?
(c) A third group will evaluate the underlying policy and fair ness of adverse possession laws. Should the law reward persons who take possession of someone elses land for their own use? Does it make sense to punish owners who allow someone else to use their land without complaint? Explain.
(d) The fourth group will consider how the laws governing adverse possession vary from state to state. To acquire title through adverse possession, a person might be required to possess the property for five years in one state, for instance, and for twenty years in another. Are there any legitimate reasons for such regional differences? Would it be better if all states had the same requirements? Explain your answers.
