Theodore Alexander Buders made substantial gifts Essay Example

the lawsuit. In an unrelated legal issue, Joseph and Helen Naab purchased property in Williamstown subdivision in West Virginia where the principle of adverse possession applies.

The property, when purchased, consisted of a small concrete garage and a house. The garage had been built by a former owner over two decades ago before the Naabs became the owners. Two years after the Naabs took ownership, an adjacent plot was bought by Roger and Cynthia Nolan. They carried out a survey on their land in the following year. The results of this survey showed that one corner of the Naabs' garage extended onto Nolans' land by about 1.22 feet while another corner crossed their boundary line by nearly 0.91 feet.

The Nolans requested the Naabs to vacate their garage from the premises. However, when the Naabs refused, it led to a legal dispute. The outcome of this case is uncertain. As per Naab A's view, any trespasser has a chance to legally own the property if they fulfill certain conditions set by state law - their occupancy must be hostile, adverse, actual, exclusive, open, notorious and uninterrupted yet peaceful for a duration between 10-20 years.

In West Virginia, the minimum time for adverse possession is ten years.


49.2 Implied Warranty of Habitability Sharon Love signed a lease agreement with Monarch Apartments (Monarch) for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas.

Shortly after moving in, Love encountered severe termite issues. The walls swelled, clouds of dirt emerged from them, and when Love checked on her children one night, she noticed termites flying around the room.

Initially, Love raised an issue with

Monarch regarding a termite infestation in her apartment. As a result, they carried out extermination efforts, but unfortunately, the problem persisted. This led to Monarch relocating Love and her children to another unit - specifically, apartment 2. Unfortunately, upon moving into their new accommodation, they were met with a new challenge – a cockroach invasion in various parts of their dwelling including the walls, ceilings and floors. Despite expressing her concerns once again to Monarch, all they did was hire another exterminator who attempted to spray the apartment but failed as the roach problem remained unresolved. This eventually led Love to vacate the property altogether. The question now is whether it was lawful for Love to terminate her lease contract? And who will come out on top from this situation?

In Lexis 219 (Court of Appeals of Kansas), Love lawfully terminated the lease under the Implied Warranty of Habitability as the leased property was unfit, unsafe, and unsuitable for ordinary residential use. In the case of Tort Liability Luis and Barbara Chavez leased their Arizona house to Michael and Terry Diaz. According to the lease agreement, no pets were allowed without the landlords' written approval. However, the Diazes kept a Pit Bull and a half Pit Bull, half-Rottweiler dog on the premises without permission or knowledge from the landlords.

Two weeks later, the Diazes' two dogs ran away from the backyard and attacked Josephine Gibbons, causing her injuries. Gibbons took legal action against the landlords seeking compensation. The question arises: can the landlords be held responsible? Or is it the tenants who are liable? According to the lease agreement, the tenants are responsible

as they violated its terms and their negligence caused harm to someone else. In case the landlord pays any damages, he can seek reimbursement from the tenant for breach of contract.