K. Miller Case Summary

Words: 844
Pages: 4

K. Miller’s analysis of the issues Martin has experienced regarding real and personal property provided clarity regarding protection of the mountain property from foreclosure, acceptance of the adverse possession with a potential agreement for use, possible avenue to deny eminent domain, and supported the recovery of the classic car (2017). This response analysis concurs with the right of survivorship, offers contrasting viewpoint regarding the adverse possession by Otis, agrees with and provides additional information to defend against the eminent domain action, and finds that K. Miller provided a clear and accurate response to the recovery of the stolen vehicle (2017).
Joint Tenancy
This analyst identified that there was in fact a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, but misinterpreted the concept, and found that upon Peter’s death and execution of his will, the property would have created a tenancy in common and encumbered the property to foreclosure (Tilly & Hetrick, 2015). However, K. Miller’s findings were correct in revealing that Andrew had no interest in the property, as Martin was the sole survivor with complete interest right to the property (2017). Upon analysis of previous findings and those of K. Miller, the concept of the right to survivorship is better understood and recommend concurrence with
…show more content…
Miller that eminent domain is an issue that Martin may defend against, but it is costly and cost analysis must be conducted in line with Luke 14:28, “…calculate the cost…” (NASB). Analysis offers that North Carolina restricted the use of eminent domain in N.C.G.S. § 40A-3 to allow for private parties to condemn property for public use under such circumstances as rehabilitating a blighted property and public works projects (N.C.G.S. § 40A-3). Martin’s property was not condemned for blight, but that the resort would bring about jobs and taxes, two reasons that were not specified for private condemners (N.C.G.S. §