Discussion Board Forum 1

Barney is dealing with several legal issues involving his property in this case. As a spiritual friend and attorney of Barney, I will advise him of his legal rights and obligations regarding his property. Then, I will remind Barney not to make any sudden decisions before asking God for assistance. James 5:11 (English Standard Version) states, “Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful”.

The lord wants us to search for his kingdom first, and then all things will be added according to his riches and glory. Looking at the first issue from a legal perspective, the problem involves a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

According to Segal (1998), “Pursuant to this right, upon death of one of the joint tenants, the interest held by the tenant passes to the remaining joint tenants without having to undergo probate”. However; there is another underlining issue with this property. Opie, Andy son, apparently took a loan out against the interest of his share of the property and defaulted. The bank is trying to foreclose on the property.

Before this can take place I will advise Barney that he abandoned the property for at least 20 years and other legal action may occur. However; according to Klien (1986), “In joint tenancy, property goes to the other owners automatically, regardless of what is stated in a will”. Creditors can only require repayment from the tenant share that is borrowing against the property. Barney property will be protected regardless of Opie’s past actions. The second issue with this property is complicated due to Barney’s absence at the property.

The adverse possession of real property law may not be in Barney’s favor because he left it unattended for over 20 years. According to Drayton (2006), “ Under the North Carolina law, an individual can claim adverse possession of a real property if they have used it for at least 20 years in an actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous manner”. Clearly Ernest has been protecting the land for a long time openly and in a hostile manner because Barney witnessed it when he tried to go fishing on the property. According to the North Carolina law, Ernest has a right to remain on Barney’s property.

The issue with the beach house may be difficult to triumph in court because of the eminent domain. According to Kubasek, Brennan, & Brown (2012), “Under eminent domain, the government can seize property for just compensation if the purpose for doing so benefits the general welfare”. In order for Barney to triumph in court, he must prove building a Nickelodeon resort does not improve the general welfare of the community. This may be difficult due to several factors such as the community feedback, environment factors, the size of the resort, funds, etc.

At this point, Barney should accept the compensation for his property at market value to avoid paying court costs, attorney fees, and or losing his property. Sometimes it is just better to make the wise choice after looking at the entire situation.

Barney’s last property issue is complicated because his car was stolen and then resold. Fortunately Barney car was found by police at a classic car show in Mt. Olive, NC. The guy who was showing the car bought it from a used car dealership in Kinston, NC. Both of them are claiming no involvement or knowledge of this 1963 Ford Galaxy been stolen. Barney can pursue with court proceedings to get his car back.

However; the defendants can use the defense of Good Faith Purchasers for Value. According to Gilmore (1954), “A purchaser is “in good faith” as long as he is “subjectively” honest at the time he takes the paper: he is under no duty of inquiry; he may even have “forgotten” relevant information; he is merely required not to be actively in bad faith”. This may or may not protect both of these business men, but it is available to them if needed. Barney will probably receive his car back because the car dealership should have known the car was stolen because there was title presented at the time of the sale or presented at a later date.

Personally, I believe this issue is between the guy at the auction and Barney. This issue can be solved if both of them come to some kind of agreement regarding transferring the ownership. For example, since the auctioneer paid $5,600 for the automobile Barney can pay him through his insurance policy which covers theft.

If that idea doesn’t work, then my suggestion to the auctioneer is to sue the car dealership for his loss. Barney must realize that his actions can have long term consequences, which can have long-lasting results. In the future Barney should be more careful with his personal life as well as his business life.