Legal Aspects of Real Estate

QUESTION 1:
• John Hammons ,a physician, died on August 11, 2006. Dr. Hammons provided by will for his wife, Rosa, and his children by a former marriage, Janet and Jillisa. Rosa recieved a life estate in all of Dr. Hammon’s property and Janet and Jillisa recieved a remainder interest in their father’s estate. The will states:
o “My said wife during her lifetime shall have the right to sell any property received by her under the terms of this Item and invest and reinvest the proceeds thereof in other property, real or personal, in her absolute discretion. If my wife does not survive me, then all of my estate of every kind and description and wherever located, including any devise or bequest which may lapse or become void, I give, devise, and bequeth, absolutely and in fee simple, to my daughters, Janet P. Hammons and Jillisa S. Ham Mons, to be devided equally between them. ”
• (A) Describe what type of interest Dr. Hammons’ wife and daughters have. (B) After his death, Dr. Hammon’s wife, Rosa, decides to sell all of the properties that Dr. Hammon leaves, and she decides to reinvest the proceeds of those sales in a solar farm. His daughters, Rosa and Jillisa sue and allege that she has no right to do that without their consent because they had an interest in the estate as well. What will the court decide about Rosa’s right to sell the properties and invest the proceeds? To receive full credit, you need to answer both parts of the question and explain your answer for each part.
Question 2:
• Tom and Doyle proctor were deeded 20 lots of land in a Florida subdivision with the understanding that they would construct an incinerator on the property. The deed contained no specifics on the incinerator or the Proctor’s responsibilities. The developer claims a right of reentry. The Proctors claim the land is theirs as a fee simple estate. Who would be correct? To get full credit, you need to support your answer with an explanation and reference to the rules/laws that you applied to determine the answer.

 

Sample Solution

circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.

Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).

Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reason

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.