W3 DQ2-sub
Hazel is 84, and suffers from debilitating arthritis. Sometimes, she can barely walk. Every time Hazel has been unable to get around, her neighbor Ruth cooks and cleans for her until she feels better. Hazel has offered to pay Ruth, but Ruth always declines. One day when Hazel is feeling well, she and Ruth eat out in a restaurant, and Hazel tells Ruth she is going to leave her $50,000 in her will. Six months later, Hazel dies without leaving a will. Can Ruth successfully sue Hazel’s estate for $50,000? State the legal reasons for your answer.
Original answer from above question:
This is a very interesting case and in my opinion, I think that Ruth won’t be able to sue Hazel. It’s a little hard for Ruth to sue because she doesn’t have a written or verbal statement, stating that Hazel will be leaving her a will of $50,000. There was no type of contract from nether sides of the parties that she was getting $50,000 from Hazel after she would pass. No unilateral contract was made from one party, in order to enforce a contract or an act, which in this case would be Ruth because Hazel not being alive any more. Another difficulty for Ruth would be that she was offered money prior to Hazel dying and the court will automatically ask why she refused the money. It doesn’t really make any sense of her trying to win $50,000 from a dead person than accepting money from Hazel when she was alive. Ruth will not be successful at suing Hazel without proof that Hazel ever promised her money. It is always best that when placed in a situation where someone promises you something, always ask for proof of that by asking for a written contract, stating what the promises are to you.
Question 1:
Can Ruth argue promissory estoppel? Could she argue that she should be compensated for the continued work to assist Hazel on the basis of the promise for payment?
Distinguish between a joint tenancy and a tenancy in common with regards to real property. What are the differences in the owners’ rights and obligations between the types of ownership?
Original answer from above question:
The difference between joint tenancy and a tenancy in common are that with a joint tenancy (like a married couple) there is an equal share of the property. When one of them dies then the other the person will get the entirety of the worth of the property. He/she is the only other person that has rights to the property. In the event of a tenancy in common there does not have to be an equal share of the ownership of the property, meaning that one person can have a larger share of ownership of the property. However, they all have an equal right to the property. What this means is that any one of the tenants has the right to alienate or transfer the rights of the property to another without the consent of the other or others. In a tenancy in common there is no right of survivorship to the property if one or the other passes away. In the event that one of the tenants dies the property atomically goes into probate and the court systems will decide the fate of the property and who has the rights to that property, and that could be the other tenant.
Question 2
Most married couples buy home in joint tenancy. However, if the marriage was on the verge of divorce is it possible for a spouse of the marriage to turn the JT into a tenancy in common? Can you think of some way
Question 1: Can Ruth argue promissory estoppel? Could she argue that she should be compensated for the continued work to assist Hazel on the basis of the promise for payment?
To determine if Ruth can argue promissory estoppel, we need to understand the concept of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows a party to enforce a promise even if there is no formal contract. In order to successfully assert promissory estoppel, the following elements need to be met:
1. Promise: There must be a clear promise made by one party to another.
2. Reliance: The promisee must reasonably rely on the promise and take action based on it.
3. Detriment: The promisee must suffer a detriment or loss as a result of relying on the promise.
4. Injustice: It would be unjust or inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise.
In this case, there was a promise made by Hazel to leave $50,000 to Ruth in her will. Ruth relied on this promise by providing assistance to Hazel when she was unable to get around. This assistance can be considered a detriment as Ruth invested her time and effort into helping Hazel. However, since Hazel did not leave a will, there is no written evidence or documentation of the promise she made to Ruth.
Without clear evidence of the promise and reliance, it may be difficult for Ruth to successfully argue promissory estoppel in court. It would be important for Ruth to gather any evidence she may have, such as witnesses or any written communication about the promise, to support her claim.
Question 2: Can a spouse turn joint tenancy into a tenancy in common if the marriage is on the verge of divorce?
In regards to real property ownership, joint tenancy and tenancy in common are two different forms of ownership. Let's understand the differences between them:
1. Joint Tenancy: In joint tenancy, the co-owners (usually married couples) have an equal share of the property. When one owner dies, their share automatically passes to the surviving owner(s) through the right of survivorship. This means that the deceased owner's share does not go into their estate or become inheritable by anyone else.
2. Tenancy in Common: In a tenancy in common, each co-owner can have different shares or percentages of ownership. They all have equal rights to use and enjoy the property, but there is no right of survivorship. If one owner passes away, their share of the property becomes a part of their estate and is distributed according to their will or the laws of intestate succession.
Now, can a spouse turn joint tenancy into a tenancy in common if the marriage is on the verge of divorce? The answer depends on the laws of the specific jurisdiction where the property is located. In some jurisdictions, a divorce proceeding may have an impact on the type of ownership. It is possible for one spouse to request a partition or division of the property during the divorce process. This can result in the property being converted from joint tenancy to tenancy in common, allowing each spouse to have separate shares.
However, it is important to consult with a legal professional who is knowledgeable in real estate and family law to understand the specific laws and requirements of your jurisdiction. The laws regarding property ownership and division can vary from place to place, so it is important to get accurate and up-to-date legal advice in such situations.