Evaluating Property Condemnation- A Case Study of Public Access and Private Property Rights

Evaluating Property Condemnation- A Case Study of Public Access and Private Property Rights

The Roche citizens have the right to walk across Shoepke’s and along the five-foot trail since it is part of the two-mile public trail system. There is nothing wrong with the public walking along the trail, but it is wrong to trespass onto private property such as Shoepke’s home. However, we are told that teenagers threw the freebee disc over Shoepke’s property but not into his property. There is nowhere in the law that denies the public to throw things over private property; the law is the trespass law that restrains third parties from accessing private property.[1] In this case, Shoepke has no legal right to deny the public to throw items overs his property since this does not amount to trespass. When Shoepke decides to go to court to seek courts’ intervention into the matter, he will have to prove to the court the haram he suffers from when the freebee’s discs are thrown over his property. When he manages to convince the court that he suffers harm for teenagers’ behaviours, the court may award an injunction on such behaviours.[2] But if he fails to show to the court the harm he suffers, the case fails.

What covenants would most courts infer were included in the warranty deed that Shoepke received when he bought his house?

Some of the covenants that most courts would infer in the purchase agreement are; first, the court would infer that since Shoepke knew well that his new property is adjacent to the park and along the public trail.[3]Therefore, it was common sense to know and understand that he would be disturbed by the passersby. It was a mistake for Shoepke to accept buying the property adjacent to the public park and the public trial without carrying out the due diligence to know the consequence of doing so. Thus, the court will infer that Shoepke knew that his new home was located within the public trail and park.

The second covenant the court can infer from this case is that in his lease agreement with Lauren Slater, Shoepke had no problem when Slater sublet the second floor of his property. The court infers that if Shoepke did not include in the lease agreement that the lessee should not sublease it, then it means that he agreed. Therefore, it could be hard for Shoepke to sue Slater for subleasing the second floor of his apartment to Indalecio because the lease agreement did not state there was no subleasing.

Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Explain.

Yes, Shoepke can successfully hold Slater liable for the damage that occurred on his property. This is because by leasing him the second floor, it was obvious thing that Slater could responsibly take care of the floor. Slater owed a duty of care to Sheopke by ensuring that a section of the property that was leased to him was not damaged.[4] However, Shoepke could not sue Indalecio, the person who had subleased from Slater. Shoepke can successfully sue Slater for failing to perform his duty of care, an action that led to the damage of a section of his property.

Could the fact that teenagers continually throw Frisbees over Shoepke’s yard outside the second-floor windows arguably be a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment? Why or why not?

No, when teenagers continually throw freebee discs over Shoepke’s property to the other side, it does not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Shoepke bought the property when the park and the public trail already existed. Thus, he presumed that he knew what happened there and that buying such property was an obvious risk. In deciding such a case, the court will base its decision on the utilitarianism principle that advocates for collective enjoyment rather than individual enjoyment.[5] Shoepke alone could not deny the whole community to have their enjoyment over his enjoyment.

Debate

The local government has a right to condemn property to either sell it to a private developer or develop its projects. The condemnation of private property is legal only if the local government proves that it would help to boost the economy largely compared to when one private individual owns the land.[6] The local government can condemn the land if it is sure that the private developer will create many jobs and pay the government’s taxes. Thus, the benefits of condemning the land supersede those of leaving the private owner.

Bibliography

Miller, R. (2017). Business Law Today. 11th Ed. Cengage Learning.

Saginor, J & McDonald, F. (2009). Eminent Domain: A Review of the Issues. Journal of Real Estate Literature Vol. 17, No. 1 (2009), pp. 3-43

Stewart, M & Portman, J. (n.d). Leases & Rental Agreements: Keep Your House or Walk Away With Money in Your Pocket. Kindle Ed.

[1] Miller, R. (2017). Business Law Today. 11th Ed. Cengage Learning.

[2] Stewart, M & Portman, J. (). Leases & Rental Agreements: Keep Your House or Walk Away With Money in Your Pocket. Kindle Ed.

[3] Miller, R. (2017).

[4] Stewart, M & Portman, J. (). Leases & Rental Agreements: Keep Your House or Walk Away With Money in Your Pocket. Kindle Ed.

[5] Stewart, M & Portman, J. (n.d).

[6] Saginor, J & McDonald, F. (2009). Eminent Domain: A Review of the Issues. Journal of Real Estate Literature Vol. 17, No. 1 (2009), pp. 3-43

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Answer the 4 questions based on the information given. Then, discuss your position on the debate on this topic. When you are responding to the “Debate this” prompt, I do not want you to simply state whether you agree with the statement or disagree with the statement. I want you to explain the WHY. I want you to have material to back up your position. I want to see the support. What is your source? Additionally, when you post your final comment, don’t simply say I agree.

Evaluating Property Condemnation- A Case Study of Public Access and Private Property Rights

Debate This: Property condemnation
From Business Law II
Chapter 42. P. 1012

Vern Shoepke bought a two-story home in Roche, Maine. The warranty deed did not specify what covenants would be included in the conveyance. The property was adjacent to a public park that included a popular Frisbee golf course. (Frisbee golf is a sport similar to golf but using Frisbees.) Wayakichi Creek ran along the north end of the park and Shoepke’s property. The deed allowed Roche citizens the right to walk across a five-foot-wide section of the lot beside Wayakichi Creek as part of a two-mile public trail system. Teenagers regularly threw Frisbee golf discs from the walking path behind Shoepke’s property over his yard to the adjacent park. Shoepke habitually shouted and cursed at the teenagers, demanding that they not throw the discs over his yard.

Two months after moving into his Roche home, Shoepke leased the second floor to Lauren Slater for nine months. The lease agreement did not specify that Shoepke’s consent would be required to sublease the second floor. After three months of tenancy, Slater sublet the second floor to a local artist, Javier Indalecio. Over the remaining six months, Indalecio’s use of oil paints damaged the carpeting in Shoepke’s home. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. What is the term for the right of Roche citizens to walk across Shoepke’s land on the trail?

2. What covenants would most courts infer were included in the warranty deed that Shoepke received when he bought his house?

3. Can Shoepke hold Slater financially responsible for the damage to the carpeting caused by Indalecio? Explain.

4. Could the fact that teenagers continually throw Frisbees over Shoepke’s yard outside the second-floor windows arguably be a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment? Why or why not?