Souders v. Johnson; Franks v. Kazi; Gibbons v. Chavez (Coursework Sample)

Please answer all of the questions within the following 6 cases correctly. 
47.8, 47.2, 49.6 49.7, 48.3, 48.4
47.8 Ethics When Dr. Arthur M. Edwards died, leaving a will disposing of his property, he left the villa-type condominium in which he lived, its “contents,” and $ 10,000 to his stepson, Ronald W. Souders. Edwards left the residual of his estate to other named legatees. In administering the estate, certain stock certificates, passbook savings accounts, and other bank statements were found in Edwards’s condominium. Souders claimed that these items belonged to him because they were “contents” of the condominium. The other legatees opposed Souders’ claim, alleging that the disputed property was intangible property and not part of the contents of the condominium. The value of the property was as follows: condominium, $ 138,000; furniture in con-dominium, $ 4,000; stocks, $ 377,000; and passbook and other bank accounts, $ 124,000. Who is 124,000. Who is entitled to the stocks and bank accounts? Do you think Souders acted ethically in this case? Souders v. Johnson , 501 So.2d 745, Web
47.2 Mislaid Property Alex Franks was a guest stay-ing at a Comfort Inn in Searcy, Arkansas, while he was working on a highway project. Franks found a bundle of money in plain view in the left part of the left drawer in the dresser in his room. Franks notified the hotel man-ager, who notified the police. The police took custody of the money and discovered that the carefully wrapped bundle contained $ 14,200 in cash—46 $ 100 bills and 480 $ 20 bills. Franks sued to recover the cash. J.K. Kazi, the owner of the hotel, joined the lawsuit, also claim-ing the money. Franks argued that the money was lost property and therefore he, as the finder, was entitled to the money. Kazi argued that the money was mislaid property and that he, as the owner of the premises on which the money was found, was entitled to the money. The trial court held that the money had been mis-laid and awarded the money to Kazi, the hotel owner. Franks appealed. Was the money mislaid or lost prop-erty? Who receives the property? Franks v. Kazi , 88 Ark.App. 243, 197 S.W.3d 5, Web 2004 Ark. App. Lexis 771 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas)
49.6 Tort Liability William Long, d/b/a Hoosier Homes, owned an apartment building in Indianapolis, Indiana. He rented a second-story apartment to Marvin Tardy. Almedia McLayea visited Tardy with her one-month-old nephew, Garfield Dawson. As McLayea was leaving the apartment, she walked down the stairway, carrying Dawson in an infant seat. As she came down four steps to a landing, which led to a flight of 10 stairs, she caught her heel on a stair, slipped, and fell forward. There was no handrail along the stairway (as required by law) by which she could break her fall. Instead, her shoulder struck a window at the landing, the window broke, the rotted screen behind it collapsed, and Daw-son fell through the opening to the ground below. He sustained permanent injuries, including brain damage. Dawson (through his mother) sued the landlord to re-cover damages for negligence. Who wins? Dawson v. Long , 546 N.E.2d 1265, Web 1989 Ind.App. Lexis 1225 (Court of Appeals of Indiana)
49.7 Tort Liability Luis and Barbara Chavez leased a house they owned in Arizona to Michael and Terry Diaz. The lease provided that no pets were to be kept on the premises without prior written approval of the landlords. The Diazes, without the landlords’ consent or knowledge, kept a pit bull and another dog, which was half pit bull and half rottweiler, at the leased premises. Two weeks later, the Diazes’ two dogs escaped from the backyard and attacked and injured Josephine Gibbons. Gibbons sued the landlords for damages. Are the land-lords liable? Are the tenants liable? Gibbons v. Chavez , 160 Ariz. 73, 770 P.2d 377, Web 1988 Ariz.App. Lexis 
48.3 Joint Tenancy Verna M. Chappell owned a piece of real property. Subsequently, Chappell transferred the property to herself and her niece, Bertha M. Stewart, as joint tenants. When Chappell died 16 years later, Chappell’s gross estate was set at $ 28,321, which included the value of the house. Claims, debts, and charges against the estate totaled $ 19,451, which in-cluded a $ 14,040 claim by Lorna M. Rembe for services provided as conservator. The probate assets available to pay the claims and debts came to only $ 1,571 if the real property went to Stewart as the joint tenant. Rembe sued, alleging that the value of the real property should be used to pay off Chappell’s debts and claims. Who wins? Rembe v. Stewart , 387 N.W.2d 313, Web 1986 Iowa Sup. Lexis 1177 (Supreme Court of Iowa) 
48.4 Community Property Daniel T. Yu and his wife, Bernice, owned a house and two lots as community property. Yu entered into an agreement with Arch, Ltd. (Arch), whereby he agreed to exchange these proper-ties for two office buildings owned by Arch. Yu signed the agreement, but his wife did not. At the date set for closing, Arch performed its obligations under the agreement, executed all documents, and was prepared to transfer title to its properties to Yu. Yu, however, refused to perform his obligations under the agree-ment. Evidence showed that the office buildings had decreased in value from $ 800,000 to $ 700,000 from the date of the agreement to the date set for closing. Arch sued Yu to recover damages for breach of con-tract. Who wins? Arch, Ltd. v. Yu , 108 N.M. 67, 766 P.2d 911, Web 1988 N.M Lexis 330 ( Supreme Court of New Mexico)
Copyright | Prentice Hall | Business Law |