Ray vs - Ray vs Beacon(ADVERSE POSSESION In this case the plaintiff(Ray in 1960 began living in a house which was part of a 156-acre site owned by

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ray vs. Beacon (ADVERSE POSSESION) In this case the plaintiff (Ray) in 1960 began living in a house which was part of a 156-acre site owned by the defendant (Beacon Hudson). The site used to be a booming town but is now decrepit with buildings decaying and vandalism wide spread and now (1988) Beacon wants to kick Ray off premises. The issue in this case is whether Ray and his wife, who are adverse possessors of house that is owned by Beacon, showed continuity of possession and therefore have the right and title to the land? Ray and his wife used the property for one month out of the year. Ray paid taxes on the property, installed telephone and electric service, put “no trespassing” on property, placed bars and shutters on doors and windows, and even claimed the residence as their voting residence. Therefore because Ray met the mandatory 10-year statutory period of ownership (lived in house from 1960-1988) AND because showed dominion and control over premises (by installing all the things listed above) Ray and wife are awarded title and interest to property. There was no dissent in the case and while this case was tricky because Ray only lived there for one month out of the year (typically for dominion you need at least a season), Nonetheless Ray showed significant dominion over property so I agree with courts decision. Butler vs. Rafferty (TENANT-IN-COMMON) In this case the plaintiff (Butler) fell off bed located on the defendant (Rafferty) co-owned property (owned with his sister Maureen). The issue in this case is whether defendant owed duty of care to plaintiff and therefore should be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries? The relevant facts in this case are the property was a singe family home which defendant and his sister entered into an agreement to split. Maureen her husband and her son would live in a new addition of the house and Rafferty would remain in original residence. The injury occurred in Maureen’s new addition. The court finds that Rafferty does not owe duty of care and therefore should not be held liable. Court reasoned that although defendant was tenant-in-common he was an “out of possession landlord” and therefore should not be held liable. There was dissent in this case whoa argued that because the home was a single- family home the defendant did not establish, as a matter of law, that he had no control over Maureen’s property. Clackamas Gastro vs. Wells Plaintiff (Clackamas) is a medical clinic in Oregon with four physicians. The defendant (Wells) was a bookkeeper who was terminated and then brought action for unlawful discrimination under the American Disabilities Act. Under the act an employer is not covered unless its workforce has “15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in a year”. Therefore the issue in this case is whether
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/19/2008 for the course AEM 3200 taught by Professor Grossman,d. during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 4

Ray vs - Ray vs Beacon(ADVERSE POSSESION In this case the plaintiff(Ray in 1960 began living in a house which was part of a 156-acre site owned by

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online