Preview

James V. Taylor

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
570 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
James V. Taylor
Case 49-3
James V. Taylor
Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III, 1998
62 Ark. App. 130, 969 S.W.2d 672

FACTS: Eula Mae Redmon conveyed certain real estate to her children, W. C. Sewell, Billy Sewell, and Melba Taylor, by means of a January 1993 deed. The deed recited that the property was conveyed to the three grantees "jointly and severally, and unto their heirs, assigns, and successors forever," subject to a life estate retained by Mrs. Redmon. W. C. Sewell died in November 1993. Billy Sewell died two years later. After Mrs. Redmon passed away in 1997, Melba Taylor filed a declaratory judgment action in which she asked the court to rule that her mother had intended to convey the property to the three grantees as joint tenants and that Taylor, by virtue of her brothers' deaths, had become sole owner of the property under the right of survivorship. Descendants of W. C. and Billy Sewell (referred to hereinafter as "the Sewell descendants") opposed Taylor's request. They contended that Mrs. Redmon's deed created a tenancy in common, and that they had succeeded to the ownership interests W. C. and Billy Sewell held prior to their deaths.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The trial judge considered extrinsic evidence of Mrs. Redmon's intent and concluded that she meant to convey the property to her three children as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. He therefore held that Taylor had become sole owner of the property. The Sewell descendants appealed.

ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether a deed from the late Eura Mae Redmon to her three children, W.C. Sewell, Billy Sewell, and appellee Melba Taylor, was a conveyance to them as tenants in common or as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.

RULE OF LAW: Under Arkansas law, a deed to two or more persons presumptively creates a tenancy in common unless the deed expressly creates a joint tenancy. They cite Ark.Code Ann. § 18-12-603 (1987), which reads as follows: “Every interest in real

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Janet (taxpayer) residing in Australia is named as the sole beneficiary of a property (1.85 hectares) with a large homestead as a result of the death of a relative on 7/10/2010. The property is not used for commercial purposes and at the date of death, the property was valued at $1.45million. Settlement took place on 21/12/2010. After moving into the homestead shortly after taking ownership, she planned to take a one-year trip which she had been planning for some time in late 2011. The taxpayer felt that the homestead was far too large for her (she is single),…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the first trial, the court found the Garretts liable to the tenants for substantive and procedural unconscionability. Tenants maintained that the new rental prices placed by the owners were above the fair market value of the lots. Moreover, most of the unit homes in the property were virtually unmovable and after years of depreciation most of them were not accepted by other mobile home parks. Therefore, even if the tenants wanted to leave, that was not reasonably doable due to the age of the units which made almost impossible the option for the tenants to find substitutes unless they purchase new mobile homes. The court declared procedural unconscionability due to the unfair bargaining position of the Garrets with respect to the tenants, and substantive unconscionability because there was proof that the rent charged was above the fair market rental…

    • 889 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Gagnon V Coombs Summary

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Without any knowledge that POA was revoked, Joan created and executed a trust where she was the sole trustee, and conveyed the Shelburne to the trust but failed to notify her father. Mr. Gagnon’s attorney demanded that Joan return the property to her father but she refused. Mr. Gagnon filed an action and the trial court found that Joan had the authority under the…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    (Cheeseman2013) In the case of Cunningham v. Hastings, Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Cunningham, was an unmarried couple, purchased a home together. Mr. Hastings put $45,000 down payment toward the home out of his pocket. When it came to how the deed established the deed stated Hastings Cunningham as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The couple occupied the property jointly. When the relationship between the two ended, Mr. Hastings seized sole possession of the property. Mrs. Cunningham filed a complaint seeking partition of the real estate. Based on its determination that the property could not be split, the trial court ordered it to be sold. The trial court further ordered that $45,000 of the sale proceeds be paid to Mr. Hastings to reimburse…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Francis Gagnon and his wife who were elderly owned a farm in Shelburne Massachusetts as well as property in Hillsborough, New Hampshire. Mr. & Mrs. Gagnon had two children, Frank Gagnon and Joan Coombs. The daughter asked Mr. & Mrs. Gagnon to sign a power of attorney so she could take care of them and their property. The son did not know about this at the time and upon finding out, was quite angry. Mrs. Gagnon died after the power of attorney was signed and then revoked. Joan Coombs, was unaware that the power of attorney that her parents signed was revoked.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nora Lindsay Case Study

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The observations of Kirby P in this case provided that when the court is able to draw sufficient evidence from an informal document that the deceased intended to direct the bestowal of his or her property after death, such documents constituted the deceased’s Will. These observations were supported by Justice Hodgson’s in Costa v The Public Trustee of NSW. Justice Basten also identified from Pahlow-Silady v Siladi that the deceased’s understanding of the nature of the will is a relevant consideration in assessing intention. The case of The Public Trustee v Gerritsen was also referred to with respect to the third element from Hatsatouris. Justice Beech concluded that documents which are written and signed by the deceased do not require evidence of separate acts or words to support his or her intention that the document constitutes their…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    As Martin’s friend and attorney, I would advise him that he is the sole owner of mountain property. Since the property was purchased as a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship, Martin is now the only living tenant. Right of survivorship automatically divides the interest of the deceased tenant equally among the remaining tenants, until there is only one. Peter evidently misunderstand the right of survivorship when he indicated in his will that his share was to be transferred to his son Andrew. According to the text, under joint tenancy, all are co-owners of equal shares and may sell their shares without the consent of other owners. Their interest can be attached by creditors ( , p. 354). Since…

    • 1032 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Mr. Barney Case Study

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages

    One of the three legal issues Mr. Barney is facing includes the investment of mountain home that he owns with three of his friends as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A law states that “The interests of the grantees holding property in joint tenancy with right of survivorship shall be deemed to be equal unless otherwise specified in the conveyance” (North Carolina g.s. § 41-2). This explains that when someone is under a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship and during that period if one of the owner dies, the other joint tenants get that owner’s portion in the property regardless of the deceased owner’s will or the rule of interstate succession (Lewis, 2011). In Mr. Barney’s case, one of his friends, Andy dies and his will showed interest of the property which is owned with three friends to his son, Opie. According to the law explained above, Opie is not entitled to become an owner or the partner of this property and therefore, Mr. Barney is not legally liable for the defaulted loan nor can the bank foreclose the property. As…

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    State Intestacy Case Study

    • 3050 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Each partner i. a joint tenant in all of the couple's property owned joint tenancy with rights…

    • 3050 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In this project we are going to explain about Zachary Taylor, 1-Who was he? 2-What is Zachary Taylor most known for? 3-What happened with him after year 1784? 4-How did he die?…

    • 134 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Life estate Pur Autre Vie should be given to Lucy, based on her life and Barry’s life with the remainder being divided between his heirs in a fee simple absolute. This would allow both he and Lucy to live there for the duration of their lives, yet the property interest is in Lucy’s name. The heirs will have the remainder interest as…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    charles taylor

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Here's a look at the life of Charles Taylor, former president of Liberia and convicted war criminal:…

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This research is conducted on The Theory of Title: When does title to real property transfer in the State of Arkansas. The research reviews general arguments regarding the three theories of the transfer of title of real property throughout the United States and specifically examines title transfer within the State of Arkansas. The State of Arkansas was selected as the example state because of its proximity to surrounding states of Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and Okalahoma and the frequency in which individuals change their residency between the surrounding States. The research examines the type of real estate transfer theory practiced in the State of Arkansas by reviewing relevant case laws, mortgage practices and supplementary materials dealing with contract law and collection of rents. The literature tends to suggest that Arkansas does that follow any particular lien theory and utilizes a combination of each of the three lien theories.…

    • 6452 Words
    • 26 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Milroy v Lord (1862)� the donor in this case used an inappropriate document to pass the interest to the relevant donee, court's decision was that this could not be an effective transfer of shares since the document was wrong and did not comply with the requirements of the bank to constitute the transfer. Milroy is the first case that presents the three different ways that a voluntary settlement may occur. First, by declaration of self as a trustee, where there is no need to transfer the legal title. In case that the land involved is not registered; the transfer of the relevant legal title to trustees must be transferred by deed and comply with S.52 LPA 1925. In registered land the trustees will become legal owners ones the transfer is also registered and comply with S. 27 LRA 2002. The second available way is by an outright gift and, the third way is by appointing someone else a trustee where the transfer of the legal title is necessary. Another particularly crucial point from this case is that it clarifies that if a failure occurs by one of the above ways then the settlement will not succeed through the other methods. The settlement that will occur depends from the nature of property that the donor wishes to transfer. Milroy v Lord (1862), Re Fry (1946), Jones v Lock (1865) and finally Richards v Delbridge (1874)� all these cases although are four different types of property that needed…

    • 1612 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Mitakshara did not permit individual alienations by the coparceners. The Smritikars also did not seem to confer on a coparcener power of alienation over his undivided interest in the joint family property. However, the textual authority is very scanty. The law of coparcener’s power of alienation is product of judicial legislation. The first inroad was made when it was held that a personal money decree against a coparcener could be executed against his undivided interest in joint property. Some High Court extended this principle to voluntary alienations also. We may divide the subject under two heads:…

    • 784 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays