Mountain Property Case

Mountain Property
Problem
In this case study Martin was faced with losing his land to Otis who claimed to have lived there for twenty years and to the lease company that had lend money to Andrew, one of his partners joint tenancy owner for the mountain property.
Legal advice Looking at Martin’s case legally, he was right to contact the attorney for the necessary legal actions. According to laws that states joint ownership of properties, a co-owner of a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship deed may sever the joint tenancy by filing a petition to partition. This was the same case that the son of Peter, Andrew did. They had a right to terminate the joint ownership with him because he was unable to clear a loan. When a joint co-owner deals in any way with a property inconsistent with a joint tenancy, that co-owner will be treated as having terminated the joint tenancy. (“The Benefits And Pitfalls Of Joint Tenancy,” n.d.) In my own opinion in that case of lenders trying to foreclose the property, they shouldn’t have done that to the whole property but rather with the interest or shares that were initially owned by the Peter and let the others co-owners to continue enjoying their properties.
Religion advice
In connection to the Mountain property in religion point of view, Martin seemed like didn’t have a use for the property? When
But on the other hand he should have considered that he is being compensated so that he can acquire another piece of land. There were a lot of advantages that would have been brought by the Tar Heel Family Resort. Considering this and other advantages, still keeping in mind that he was being compensated as the city attorney assured he should have agreed to the deal and let the society benefit from the open business ideas that would have come along with the construction of the